Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords].

Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords],

Mid-Glamorgan Water Board Bill [Lords].

West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Bedwelty Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Walsall Corporation Bill (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD COUNCIL.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the proposed Food Council will be empowered to compel the disclosure by trusts or combines of food dealers of information which is relevant to its proper investigations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As already announced by the Prime Minister, it is not proposed to confer any statutory powers on the Food Council, unless experience proves that such powers are necessary.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say what useful purpose this Council can serve which cannot already be served by the Board of Trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the very useful purposes set out in the Report of the Royal Commission.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what those purposes will be? The Board of Trade, as I understand it, has already statutory powers, and I should like to ask what powers this Council will have that are not already possessed by the Board of Trade?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — HARTLEPOOLS BREAKWATER (FOGHORN).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause to be erected at the Hartlepools breakwater a suitable foghorn, on account of the many vessels which have lately gone ashore endeavouring to enter the port at this point?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received no representations urging the establishment of a fog horn at this point, but the Hartlepool Port and Harbour Commissioners, who, as local lighthouse authority, are primarily concerned, have power to erect such a signal, with the approval of Trinity House, if they consider it necessary in the interests of navigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION TRADE.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of trade placed in this country by the Dominions in the first half-year ending May, 1923, 1924 and 1925, and the amount of raw materials and manufactured imports, separately, sent by them into this country during the same period?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE- LISTER: The answer contains in tabular form such particulars as I can give, and my hon. Friend will perhaps permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

—
January-June, 1923.*
January-June, 1924.
January-March, 1925.



£
£
£


Declared values of the exports of U.K. Produce and Manufactures consigned to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa and Newfoundland.
65,901,381
66,793,322
36,604,180


Declared values of the total imports of merchandise consigned from the same Dominions.
92,530,780
96,112,557
57,656,332


In the year 1923* the declared value of the total imports of merchandise from these Dominions was £162,823,867 of which £55,792,144 represented raw materials and articles mainly un-manufactured, and £11,625,805 represented articles wholly or mainly manufactured.


* NOTE.—For January-March, 1923, these figures include the direct trade of the Irish Free State with the Dominions named in the table.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIVERPOOL PORT SANITARY HOSPITAL.

Mr. HAYES: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Ministry Regulations as applicable to the Liverpool Port Sanitary Hospital name the diseases for which seamen are required to be admitted to this hospital; and, if so, whether these particulars are available for public information?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Liverpool Port Sanitary Authority are required by official published Regulations to make provision for the isolation of any seaborne cases of cholera, yellow fever or plague which may arrive in the port, but my right hon. Friend is not aware of any Regulations preventing the authority from admitting cases of other diseases at their discretion to the Port Sanitary Hospital.

Mr. HAYES: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the original purposes for which the hospital was established are not being violated by having within the hospital diseases that are not in the schedule?

Sir K. WOOD: I think I must ask the hon. Member to put that question down.

Following is the answer:

I regret that the particulars asked for are not available, but perhaps the following information will be of service to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (DEATH RATE).

Mr. HAYES: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the death rate in the mercantile marine service during the past five years; and whether the figures refer to occupied and retired merchant seamen or to occupied merchant seamen only?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The percentage death rate among the first crews of the British merchant vessels which engaged in trading at some time during the years specified was: in 1919, 0.87; in 1920, 0.64; in 1921, 0.56; in 1922, 0.62; and in 1923, 0.59. These figures do not include retired merchant seamen; and later information is not at present available.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that these figures are not now published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," will the right hon. Gentleman consider resuming what was the practice until a few years ago?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I am afraid I was not aware of that, but I will have the suggestion brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL TRADES.

Sir PARK GOFF: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what means
he has to propose for remedying the present depression in the iron and steel trades?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have at present nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.

Miss WILKINSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing unemployment in the heavy iron and steel trades, he will institute an inquiry into the effect on the price of steel of wayleaves and royalties on minerals entering into the production of iron and steel; and whether he will communicate the result of such inquiry to Parliament as early as possible?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): No, Sir. Such an inquiry would be laborious, and I do not think it could possibly lead to any useful result. The burden of royalties cannot be a serious factor in the causes of the present depression in the iron and steel trades; and, in any case, it could not be removed without provision for compensation that would impose an equivalent burden.

Miss WILKINSON: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is estimated that these royalties amount to at least 10s. per ton of manufactured steel, and that this forms a very serious factor in our competition with Germany, where the royalties are nationalised and the amount is not more than 2 per cent., according to answers that have been given to questions in this House?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that four tons of coal are required to produce one ton of steel, and that the average royalty per ton of coal is 6d.?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not accept those figures as accurate, certainly not as regards the royalties on every ton of steel produced. If the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has any figures that she would like to lay before me, I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. HARDIE: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, owing to royalties and wayleaves, in Cumberland we had, when we were working ore, to work about 50 per cent. more shafts than we need have done, thus adding to the
cost of fuel, because of this stupid system of wayleaves?

Colonel LANE-FOX: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Does not the Minister think, with such a conflict of opinion as to what the amounts are, it is desirable that we should have official information as to what the facts really are on this most important question to industries which are so terribly depressed?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not think it requires such an inquiry as is asked for.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the royalties are on ore as well as on coal?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Are not the Government seriously considering the question of the ascertainment of all these mining royalties?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER TEES (UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF WORKS).

Sir P. GOFF: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been made to him urging the calling of an early conference of parties interested in the trade of the Tees to discuss how far work could be expedited for the relief of unemployment by the scheme proposed for increasing dock facilities at the mouth of the river Tees; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received representations from the Middlesbrough Chamber of Commerce urging the necessity of the Government initiating further public works for the unemployed, and particularly the construction of new docks for the lower reaches of the Tees; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer these questions.
I have received representations from the Middlesbrough Chamber of Commerce with regard to the desirability of constructing new docks in the lower reaches of the Tees. This is a matter
which I have already discussed with representatives of the Tees Conservancy Commission and the London and North Eastern Railway Company. I understand that the whole question is at present under consideration by the Commissioners, and I should be quite ready to discuss the matter further with them if any points should arise on which I could be of assistance.

Sir P. GOFF: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the five local authorities are in favour of this scheme, with a view to preserving the Tees as a port in the future?

Colonel ASHLEY: I believe that is so, but the Tees Conservancy Commissioners are the people with whom I primarily deal, and I am awaiting representations from them.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the delay which has occurred in this matter, could not the Government see their way to taking the initiative and stirring up these local authorities, so that something may be done without waiting much longer?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member informed me that the local authorities did not need stirring up.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to increase our dock accommodation at a time when we are doing our best to decrease our imports?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. MORRIS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the countries imposing duties on silk and artificial silk and which base those duties upon the domestic prices of those products in the country of origin?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of the countries to which any substantial quantity of silk and artificial silk goods is exported from the United Kingdom, only the following, namely, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the United States of America, levy on such goods, or some classes of them, ad valorem Customs duties based upon the value of the goods for home consumption in the country of origin. I should add that, in estimating the dutiable value on
this basis, Australia, New Zealand and probably also South Africa, make allowance for any drawback of internal duty granted in the country of origin.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does this mean that the United States will impose their duty on the value of the silk manufactured in this country, plus the Excise duty on it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must take the answer which I have given. If he wants to put a further question, I shall be glad if he will put it down.

Mr. MORRIS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of British and foreign artificial silk yarn, respectively, is used in the manufacture of cotton and woollen cloths in this country?

Mr. BRIANT: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the respective quantities for home and foreign trade of the manufacture of cotton and woollen cloths containing silk or artificial silk?

Sir P CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Members is not available.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given us an estimate of the amount of revenue that he proposes to raise from this tax?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That does not seem to me to bear any relation to the Questions on the Paper.

Captain BENN: If it is not possible to state how much of a dutiable article comes in, how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what the yield of the duty will be?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consult with his hon. friends. That is not the question on the Paper. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for a detailed analysis of a particular fraction of a particular section of a portion of the trade of the country.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the new duties on silk and artificial silk, he has any information as to the employment of foreign capital in this country for the production of the same?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no special information on this subject.

Mr. BRIANT: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has formed any estimate of the annual amount of drawback to which the Treasury will be liable under the Silk Duties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to estimate accurately the total amount of drawback that will be payable. But the estimates of revenue contained a margin in order to cover the drawbacks on such goods as well as other factors that could not be definitely measured.

INCOME TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the anxiety caused by instructions issued that claimants for repayment of over-paid Income Tax may be called upon to appear in person, he will institute some other process of identification, e.g., a sworn statement before a justice of the peace or some other person acceptable to him and his Department?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would invite the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made on this subject in the course of the Debate on the Finance Bill in Committee and to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford on Friday last. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the statement and of the reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHT DUES, BARROW-IN-FURNESS.

Mr. BROMLEY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount received by the Furness Railway Company and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company from the light duties levied on ships loading and unloading in Barrow-in-Furness Harbour since 1894; whether the Board of Trade has at any time reduced the amount of such dues since 1897; and if he will consider their reduction in the interests of the port of Barrow?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed by the Commissioners of the Port of Lancaster that the total amount paid to the railway company during the last 31 years is £17,593 12s. 2d. The dues
have not been reduced since the passing of the Act, and the question of reducing them is now being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER PRODUCTION (RESTRICTION POLICY).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present high price of rubber, it is intended to make any change in the rubber production restriction policy?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Penny) on the 7th May, to which I have nothing to add.

Colonel GRETTON: Are the British Government, through the Colonial Office or otherwise, in any way responsible for the restriction of the production of rubber in the British Empire?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes; for some time past there has been in operation what we call the Stevenson scheme, which has been carefully reviewed from time to time. It is not proposed to make any drastic or sudden alterations in what has been the settled policy for the last two or three years.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the policy of restriction was definitely undertaken for the express purpose of increasing the price of rubber?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, it was to prevent the destruction of a large number of rubber estates in Malaya, which otherwise would have become derelict and gone out of cultivation altogether, and to maintain them in existence so that production might, in the long run, be increased. Otherwise, the industry would have been destroyed at that particular moment.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Are we to take it that the instructions to these people in Malaya and to this Government, to restrict the production of rubber, come from Moscow?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly not. The matter has been frequently discussed in this House. It was carried cut by the late Government as well as the previous
Government, and has been the consistent policy all along, in order to maintain in existence a very important British rubber-producing industry in Malaya.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when was the last occasion on which the policy of restriction was reviewed by the Colonial Office?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Almost within the last few weeks or months. The Special Rubber Committee, which is concerned with the working of the Stevenson scheme, reviews the situation and gives consideration to it from time to time. It has been under consideration quite recently.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COAL (CHINA AND INDIA).

Mr. HARDIE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give a return of the number of tons of coal that have been taken from mines in China and India and sent to markets formerly supplied with British coal during the last six months for which returns are available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is rather long, and includes a number of figures. The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The latest information available regarding exports from China is for the year 1923. The Straits Settlements and Hong Kong are the only markets of any importance which took British coal before the War to which Chinese coal was exported in 1923. The exports of coal from Chinese ports to the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong were, respectively, 112,000 tons and 200,000 tons in 1913, and 35,000 tons and 308,000 tons in 1923. The exports of coal from the United Kingdom to these markets were, respectively, 30,000 tons and 52,000 tons in 1913, and 20,000 tons and 17,000 tons in 1923. As regards Indian coal, the only export market of any importance to-day is Ceylon, to which 425,000 tons were
exported in the year 1913, and 124,000 tons in the six months ending April, 1925. The exports of coal to Ceylon from the United Kingdom during these periods were 240,000 tons and 65,000 tons.

CINEMA FILMS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 13 and 14.
(for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY) asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what were the quantities and value of cinematograph films imported into Great Britain during last year, and what proportion of these films had been produced by British companies working abroad or overseas;
(2) what was the total length and value of British-produced cinematograph films, positive and negative, respectively, exported from this country during the first four months of this year; and what were the corresponding figures for the first four-months of 1924?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the replies contain tables of figures, I propose, with the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, to have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the replies:

The quantities and values of cinematograph film imported into the United. Kingdom during 1924 were as follows:



Linear feet.
£


Blank film
71,500,000
230,000


Positive film
36,500,000
246,000


Negative film
6,700,000
683,000

During the first seven months of the year, when the duties were in force, 85,000 feet of negative film were imported at reduced rates of duty as being the product of British producers domiciled in the United Kingdom. The total quantity of negative film imported during that period was 3,660,000 feet. No particulars distinguishing film produced by British companies are available for the remainder of the year.

The quantities and declared values of positive and negative cinematograph films (United Kingdom manufacture), registered as exported from Great Britain
and Northern Ireland during the first four months of 1924 and the correspond

—
Positives.
Negatives.



Linear ft.
£
Linear ft.
£


Four months ending 30th April, 1924
6,472,998
45,513
157,769
6,207


Four months ending 30th April, 1925
9,786,238
58,479
159,111
4,514

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

IRISH FREE STATE (BRITISH UNIFORM).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the recent incident in which a soldier belonging to the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers was compelled to discard his uniform by the Civic Guard of the Irish Free State when he crossed the border of Northern Ireland to the Irish Free State; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a young recruit of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers stationed at their depot at Omagh, who went in uniform to Bundoran in the Irish Free State, was arrested by the Civic Guard because he wore the uniform of the British Army; and whether any representations have been made to the Irish Free State authorities in the matter?

Colonel GRETTON: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a young soldier of the 4th battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers was arrested by the Civic Guard of the Irish Free State in Bundoran, where he had gone in uniform with some members of his family; if he is aware that this soldier was informed by the police that he had committed an offence by entering the Free State in British military uniform; that his military cap and tunic were taken from him; that he was provided with a civilian cap and coat; and that his uniform was handed back to him when he left to return to Northern Ireland; if wearing British military uniform is prohibited by authority in the Irish Free State; and what action he proposes to take in regard to this incident?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): This

ing period of the current year were as follows:

incident has been greatly misrepresented. The soldier was not arrested for wearing the uniform of the British Army, nor was he compelled to discard his uniform. The facts are that the soldier, who was a recruit on leave from the depot of his regiment, had gone in uniform with a party of excursionists from Enniskillen to Bundoran, where it was noticed by the Civic Guard that he was being followed by a rowdy element in the crowd and was is danger of being molested. He was, accordingly, asked to go to the barracks of the Civic Guard, where he was advised to remain for his own safety until his return train left for Enniskillen, but at his father's suggestion he was allowed to put on civilian clothes and return to the town. I am informed that there is no law or Regulation in force in the Irish Free State forbidding the wearing of uniform by members of His Majesty's forces; but it is still considered advisable by the British military authorities in Ireland that soldiers should not wear their uniform while on leave in the Irish Free State.

Mr. MONTAGUE: If that is a misrepresentation, what is an untruth?

Colonel GRETTON: Is there any other part of the British Empire where the War Office consider it inadvisable for British soldiers to wear the King's uniform?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think there is no other part.

WAR GRAVES (GARDENERS AND CARETAKERS).

Mr. PALING: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many gardeners or caretakers of British nationality are employed in France and Belgium tending the graves of British soldiers; how many of those so employed have their wives and children with them; how many of the children are under 14 years of age; and what educational facilities are provided for such children?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of gardeners and caretakers employed in France and Belguim under the Imperial War Graves Commission at the present time is approximately 940, of whom 483 have their wives and children with them. 557 of the children are under 14 years of age, and they are admitted both in France and Belgium to the local State schools or to the schools conducted by the Church, at either of which an exceedingly good general education is given

CLOTHING DEPARTMENT (WAGES).

Mr. KELLY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a workman employed in the Royal Army Clothing Department, and held by the Tailors' and Garment Workers' Trade Union to be a stock cutter in the sense of the definition of the trade board, is in receipt of a weekly wage of 51s., whereas the wage fixed for stock cutters by the trade board is 69s.; that men in the Royal Army Clothing Department, held by the trade union to be engaged in work which entitles them to rank as warehousemen and receive the minimum rate of wages for that grade, are classified by the Department as box porters and paid the minimum rate applicable to labourers; that stock cutters employed by the Department do not receive the special additional payment of 4s. weekly which all manufacturers of military clothing in the London area pay to men of this grade; and that employés of the Department in question do not receive wages for an annual week's holiday, as do the employés of the other manufacturers of military clothing in the London area; and whether, in order to allay discontent, he will refer the questions at issue to the Wholesale Tailoring Trade Board, the Industrial Court, or some other competent authority for settlement?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain King): I am informed that there is a case of a workman employed at the Royal Army Clothing Department paid at 56s. a week, not 51s. as stated, on whose behalf it is claimed that he should be paid as a stock cutter. Both this case and that of the box porters referred to in the second part of the question have been considered, and the War Office have no reason to think that the men concerned are in receipt of less
favourable wages than would be paid for similar duties by outside firms. The box porters are paid a shilling above the minimum, and not as stated in the question. The War Office are prepared to submit to the Trade Board an agreed definition of their duties in order to satisfy the trade union as to whether the men in question are correctly graded, but it has not yet been possible to secure the agreement of the trade union to the definition of duties. With regard to the third part of the question, the 4s. has now been paid to the stock and measure cutters entitled to it. With regard to the fourth part, the Government found it necessary to refuse an application for paid leave for Government industrial employés generally so recently as last March, and an exception could not well be made in the case of the Royal Army Clothing Department. With regard to the fifth part, as all the points at issue are either under discussion or decided, I see no reason for the procedure suggested.

VACCINATION (INDIA).

Mr. DUNNICO: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the instructions in regard to vaccination, under which medical officers on duty with troops in India were required to satisfy themselves once in each year that every man, woman and child under their care was sufficiently protected by vaccination, are still in force; and, if so, what explanation have the Army medical authorities to make in regard to the cases of small-pox amongst British troops in India during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922, which are stated to have been vaccinated, or to have been vaccinated unsuccessfully, as recorded in the annual Reports of the Public Health Commissioner with the Government of India for the years in question?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the current Regulation, which shows that the instructions apply only in regard to persons who consent to be vaccinated. As regards the second part, I have no detailed information beyond that contained in the Reports referred to, which is supplied to the Public Health Commissioner by the Army Medical authorities.

Colonel APPLIN: Can the Noble Lord assure the House that nothing will be done to deprive our men, women and children of this protection?

Earl WINTERTON: I have not the slightest intention of altering the Regulation in any way.

RETIRED OFFICERS (RETENTION OF RANK).

Colonel APPLIN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House what officers of His Majesty's Regular Army and of the auxiliary forces have the right to retain and use their Army rank when no longer serving; and what steps are taken to prevent the improper use of military titles by those who have no longer the right to them?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Under the Regulations, only retired officers of the Regular Army and officers retiring from the auxiliary forces with 15 years' commissioned service have the privilege of retaining their rank. There are special rules for the retention of rank held during the great War, which are contained in Army Order 376 of 1918. It is not in itself a legal offence for an officer to call himself by a military title after he has ceased to have a right to it by the rules and custom of the Service, and I have no power to prevent it. It is a question of honour and good taste.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

BURSTING OF RESERVOIR, SKELMORLIE.

Mr. STEPHEN: 25.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the principal water reservoir on the Eglinton estate, Skelmorlie, burst on 18th April; that, as a result, five persons were drowned; and that the estate has been in receipt of an annual income of £600 in water rates from feuars on the estate for the maintenance of the reservoir and water supply; and whether steps have been taken to repair the reservoir so as to secure an adequate water supply for the people of the district?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I have no knowledge, since the water supply in question is purely a private one. In connection with the last
part of the question, I may say that remedial steps were immediately taken, and completed four days after the accident, with the result that a temporary water supply has been available since that time. As to the question of the permanent supply, I am informed that the local authority are pressing the proprietors to execute the necessary repairs, and that the proprietors are obtaining a report from an engineer on the subject.

DISMISSAL OF CONSTABLES, KILMARNOCK.

Mr. MACLEAN: 26.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the offence alleged to have been committed by the two constables in Kilmarnock for which they were dismissed by the Chief Constable; what was the record of these men when in the force; what positions these men held in the local branch of the Scottish Police Federation; and whether, in view of the indignation which their dismissal has created among all sections of the citizens of Kilmarnock, he will hold a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Chief Constable that one constable was dismissed for insubordination and disobedience to lawful orders, and the other for a breach of discipline in soliciting subscriptions to pay a fine imposed on the first-mentioned constable. The records of both men were unsatisfactory, one having been previously fined for neglect of duty, and the other having been repeatedly cautioned for misconduct. One was chairman and the other secretary of the Kilmarnock Constables' Branch Board of the Scottish Police Federation. I have no authority to review the decisions of a Chief Constable in dealing with offences against discipline. The answer to the last part of the question is therefore in the negative.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the first part of my question—"whether he will state the offence?" Does he think merely stating insubordination, without stating what was the act of insubordination, is a sufficient answer to the question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. Matters of discipline are matters that concern the Chief Constable alone.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that, under the police regulations, a Chief
Constable can himself state what constitutes insubordination? Is he to be in the position of becoming a tyrant and the sole judge as to what is insubordination? Will you have an inquiry? That is what the people of Kilmarnock want?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I see no reason for holding an inquiry into a matter in which I have no jurisdiction.

Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiry to ascertain whether the usual procedure for inquiring into disciplinary offences was observed by the Chief Constable in this case? Were the constables, in fact, supplied with information as to the offences with which they were charged? Was the usual procedure adopted, and is there a strong feeling in the force that holding a position in the local police federation is regarded unfavourably by the Chief Constable?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I called for a report from the Chief Constable, and I am satisfied that every necessary proper legal step was taken by him in making this examination.

Mr. MACLEAN: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

LOCHBOISDALE PIER.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 27.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the offer of the Government to accept liability for any damage to persons or property if the proprietrix would agree to the re-opening of Lochboisdale Pier is still open; and whether the owner of the pier gives any good reason for refusing the offer?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Government are still prepared to give such a guarantee against liability in respect of the eastern part of the pier if there is reason to believe that that course would secure its re-opening. The owner's reasons for refusing the previous offer of a guarantee were indicated in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 18th December, and in the previous answer to which I then referred.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: In view of the great loss which the people of that island are now sustaining through the closing of this pier, will the right hon. Gentle-
man say now what steps they can take in order to get a reduction of their rents?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the great inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of this district, and I still hope that some accommodation in regard to the opening of the pier may yet be reached.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May I have an answer to my question, as to what steps the people can take to have the rents of their holdings reduced, in order to make up for the loss caused by the closing of the pier by the owner?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is not a matter which arises out of the original question, nor is it one which is relevant to that question.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Are the Government unwilling to help these people to get the pier re-opened?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have indicated that the Government are prepared to renew the offer they previously made, and are making full investigations.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: This means that the Government are helpless in the matter.

RENT COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).

Mr. STEPHEN: 28.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will arrange for the publication of the evidence submitted to the Rent Commission which recently sat in Scotland; and whether he intends to introduce legislation at an early date on the lines of the Report of the Committee?

Sir J. GILMOUR: On account of the expense involved I am not prepared to arrange for the printing of the evidence given before the Committee referred to, which amounts to some 500,000 words. I am, however, prepared to place a typewritten copy of the evidence in the Library which, I trust, will serve the purposes of hon. Members interested. The question of introducing legislation is at present under the consideration of the Government.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the mass of evidence submitted, and in order that Members of this House may have the evidence before them, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? Surely Scotland is entitled to have some money spent upon it.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am very anxious to meet any reasonable request of hon. Members of this House; but I would point out that the cost of printing this would be far beyond any benefit that, so for as I can see, would be derived. I will place a copy in the Library, and it will be available for hon. Members.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the interest of Members of this House, there is a very wide public interest in the matter, and that it has been anticipated all along that the Report would be fully published and be available for public information? Will he consider that there might be a possible revenue to meet the cost?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have examined the question of cost. To print 250 copies would cost over £500, and the selling price would be over £3 per copy. I do not believe that the demand for it would in any way recoup us for the cost of printing.

Mr. MACLEAN: Considering the many statements which have appeared in the Press affecting the good faith of the tenants of Clydebank, should not the public have the right to know what are the actual facts, as revealed by this rent inquiry?

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when he will be able to tell us what steps the Government are going to take in connection with legislation on this subject?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope very shortly to be able to make an announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINES CLOSED.

Mr. LUNN: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many coal mines have been totally closed since 1st November, 1924; at how many mines 50 or more persons, normally employed, have received notice to cease work since that date; and in how many cases mines are totally or partially under notice at the present time?

Colonel LANE-FOX: 361 coal mines, normally employing 71,700 wage-earners, have been closed since 1st November, 1924, and not reopened, while 122, at present employing 12,900 wage-earners, have been opened or re-
opened. I regret that I have not the information asked for in the second and third parts of the question; but the total net reduction in numbers employed during the period is 67,100.

Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. Member say whether his Department or the Government have any policy whatever for dealing with the serious position in the mining industry which is growing daily?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a question to be asked later on that subject.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Why is it impossible for the Department to supply the information asked for in the question? It is quite simple.

Colonel LANE-FOX: We have not got it.

Mr. JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Member undertake to get it?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I will try to get it.

Mr. W. BAKER: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the danger to the national mineral resources involved by the widespread closing down of collieries at the present time, and in view of the fact that certain of these collieries have shown profits at the last ascertainment, and that in many cases profits have been made on bye-products, he will institute a public inquiry into all the circumstances of the closing down with the object of formulating a Government policy which will stop the destruction of our mineral resources by the closing down of temporarily unprofitable pits?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not know what evidence the hon. Member can have for his statement that collieries now closed showed profits at the last ascertainment. I cannot believe that any colliery owners would willingly face the heavy loss of closing down unless keeping open meant an even greater loss, and no inquiry could produce more convincing proof that a pit is unprofitable than the fact of its being closed. The only way in which the Government could keep open such a pit would be by a subsidy. That is not a course which the Government would be justified in asking the taxpayer to undertake.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell me how many of the proprietors have gone into bankruptcy?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Not without notice.

Mr. BATEY: Does the hon. and gallant Member not think that a public inquiry ought to be made, in view of the fact that so many mines have been closed, according to the information given by the Mines Department recently?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Does the hon. and gallant Member not realise that although these mines in many cases may be closed because they are unprofitable for the moment, owing to the tendency of collieries which are closed becoming waterlogged and that the coal reserves themselves may be destroyed, it is in the national interest of the greatest importance that they should not be closed down, but kept in such a condition that they may be reopened at any time when trade improves?

Colonel LANE-FOX: It is obvious that such facts must be present to the minds of the owners, who have spent very large sums of money in sinking the mines and are, therefore, loath to lose them.

Mr. JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that there is a very strong impression in mining circles among the miners that all these pits are not closed down because they are paying at the moment, but that it is part of the economic pressure that is being put upon the men?

COAL OUTPUT GREAT BRITAIN, BELGIUM AND FRANCE.

Mr. FORREST: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines the daily output of coal per man working in this country now; what it was in pre-War days; and what it is for the corresponding periods in Belgium and France?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The output per manshift in Great Britain was 20¼ cwts. in June, 1914, and 18 cwts. in the first quarter of 1925. In France it was 13¾ cwts. in 1913 and 11 cwts. in 1924. In Belgium it was 10½ cwts. in 1913 and 9¼ cwts. in the first quarter of 1925.

Mr. J. GUEST: Can the hon. and gallant Member say how the average is arrived at? Is it calculated on the men actually engaged at the face, or does the estimate include all the workers about the mine, including the surface men?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put down on the Paper.

Mr. FORREST: Are the same number of hours per week calculated?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The answer refers to the output per manshift. As the hon. Member knows, the hours are different.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that the average hours on the Continent, in France, Belgium and Germany, are nearly two hours per shift more than here?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am not sure whether the figure is two hours, but, certainly, the hours are longer.

Mr. HARDIE: Is he aware that the mines in France and Belgium are more scientifically equipped than the British mines for output, and in spite of the fact that we are not up-to-date in the scientific getting of coal we compare very favourably in output with these Continental mines?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

UNDERGROUND ROADS, LONDON.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered any proposal to construct an underground road from Berkeley Square to the Mall, or to construct any underground road scheme in any other part of London; and, if so, what is the nature of the proposal and his conclusion, if any, with regard to it?

Colonel ASHLEY: The suggested subway for road vehicles between Berkeley Square and the Mall is still under consideration by the London Traffic Advisory Committee, but I understand they consider that, on traffic grounds, other important schemes which they now have under consideration should take priority. They do not, therefore, propose to report on the Berkeley Square subway until they have dealt with these other schemes, which they consider of greater urgency. I am not at present considering any definite proposals for the construction of any other underground roads.

ROAD SURFACES.

Viscount SANDON: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the practice carried out
elsewhere as to leaving roads in a rough condition at points of danger, or, alternatively, of creating depressions in the surface at such points to secure reduction of speed; and whether he proposes to experiment in this direction?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the second part in the negative.

Mr. CLARRY: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the condition of the road surface of Bridge Street, Westminster, abutting on Palace Yard; and if he will state the material used in surfacing this portion of the street, and the date that the work was carried out?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The surface generally is in fair condition, though minor repairs are required in a few places. The material is asphalte on concrete, and the work was carried out in 1917 and 1918

Mr. CLARRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of bitument was included in the mixture?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot carry my memory back to 1918.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether research is bringing forth any new material to render the surface of the new trunk roads less dangerous after a shower of rain?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have every reason to hope that the process of surface dressing and gritting which is being applied to slippery road surfaces will effect the desired purpose. Should the Roads Improvement Bill become law, it is my intention to pursue further experiments.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that we have now the very best roads in the world, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the removal of the only remaining defect, the slipperiness of the trunk roads which are being provided.

Colonel ASHLEY: We are doing that.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (RAILWAY FARES).

Mr. OLIVER: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that the school-leaving age is 14, he will take steps
to make it obligatory on the railway companies of Britain to convey children at half fares until they reach the age of 14?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply, of which I am sending him a copy, to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Southwark on the 9th March last.

ROAD LOCOMOTIVES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interest of all other road-users and the roads themselves, he will put a limit to the weight of the destructive heavy metal-wheeled steam-propelled traction engines which break up and injure the surface of the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: The weights of road locomotives are limited to the maxima laid down in paragraph 34 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1924, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

OLD PALACE YARD.

Colonel APPLIN: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to Members of this House and other pedestrians crossing from the Abbey to the Palace of Westminster due to the excessive speed of motor traffic through Old Palace Yard; and if he will issue Regulations for a speed limit through these precincts of the House?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed that, mainly owing to the close police supervision of traffic in the precincts of this House, the danger to pedestrians is negligible. As regards the suggestion that a speed limit be imposed, I am of opinion that the traffic conditions in this neighbourhood render it unnecessary, and that the enforcement of a speed limit might in fact aggravate the existing traffic congestion without adding to the safety of pedestrians.

PASSENGER VEHICLES.

Major GLYN: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to introduce legislation to ensure that persons or companies intending to operate mechanical road vehicles to carry pas-
sengers shall prove to the satisfaction of a competent licensing authority that not only will the vehicles be of sufficient strength and design to ensure reasonable safety on any ordinary road with gradients, which are not abnormal, but that in the event of an accident the company or individual shall have sufficient capital to pay for damages to passengers or property?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have now under consideration the desirability of promoting legislation which would cover the two points raised in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

ACCIDENTS.

Major GLYN: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents to mechanical road vehicles, licensed to carry passengers, have been reported to his Department from the 1st January to the 1st June, 1925, and how does this compare with 1924; how many passengers were injured in these accidents and how many were killed or died of their injuries; and what proportion of these accidents happened in the Metropolitan area, these figures in every case to exclude persons killed or injured who were not passengers in the vehicles involved in these accidents?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. I regret that I am not able to give the information specified. I have no later figures for the country generally than those published in the Return of Accidents for 1924, which shows the street accidents in each police district. I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Mr. GROVES: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the recent char-a-banc accident at Castle Hill, Dover, in connection with which two deaths have occurred; whether he is aware that the jury expressed an opinion that the state of the road was a contributory cause of the accident; and whether he will cause immediate inquiry in order to effect the necessary road improvements?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative. With regard to the
last part, I am awaiting a report from one of my officers whom I instructed to investigate the road conditions.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport in view of the many motor omnibus and char-a-banc accidents taking place throughout the country, whether he proposes to introduce legislation during the present Session giving local authorities powers of inspection of these vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am now considering the recommendations made in the First Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Licensing and Regulation of Public Service Vehicles with a view to introducing legislation as indicated in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, but I am unable at this stage, to give the hon. Member information regarding either the precise terms of the proposed Measure or the date on which it will be possible to introduce the Bill.

Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate whether it will be in this Session or the Autumn?

Colonel ASHLEY: That question would be appropriately addressed to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

UNCLASSIFIED ROADS.

Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE (for Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN): 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give county and rural district road authorities powers to close any of their unclassified roads which get no grant from Government road funds against heavy motor traffic without having first to obtain permission from the Ministry of Transport, with a view to saving waste of ratepayers' money on roads that have no proper foundation for lorries over three tons weight?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not disposed to introduce legislation to alter the existing law relating to the closing of highways to certain classes of traffic.

Mr. FORREST (for Colonel ENGLAND): 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of his offer to make grants in certain cases up to 50 per cent, of the cost of work necessary for reconditioning and making fit for heavy motor traffic important district roads which are neither in Class I nor II, he can state
what applications he has received in connection therewith; and what grants have hitherto been made?

Colonel ASHLEY: To tabulate the information sought by the hon. and gallant Member in the first part of his question would involve a great amount of labour, and I trust therefore that he will not press for it. With regard to the last part, I would state that up to 31st March, 1925, grants amounting to £1,508,193 (£1,426,878 England and Wales and £81,315 Scotland) had been made or offered in respect of works on roads not scheduled in Class I or II.

Mr. J. JONES: In view of the large numbers who are out of work, would not this be a reasonable opportunity of giving general employment?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not agree with the principle of having work done simply for the sake of having it done.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. WHEATLEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government propose to take to deal with the serious increase in unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): This is not a matter which can be dealt with by question and answer. A full statement, however, will be made of the Government's proposals when the Ministry of Labour Vote is taken.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that no question of legislation can be discussed on such a Vote; and does not the alarming increase in the number of unemployed during the past fortnight justify us in expecting from him some statement as to what steps are being considered by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question demands a Debate in this House and you shall have it.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Government give us a day next week for a Vote of Censure on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: That must be asked for through usual channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGITIMACY BILL.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pass into law before the House rises for the autumn Adjournment the Legitimacy Bill brought down from the House of Lords last month?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the present state of public business I cannot give any definite undertaking in regard to this Bill.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say anything as to what may happen after the Adjournment for the Autumn?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think, perhaps, that that question can be put down again.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTH CONTROL.

Mr. THURTLE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the national importance of the matter, he can see his way clear to give the House an opportunity of directing that maternity centres provided at the cost of public funds should be free to give information on birth control to such married women as may desire it?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the present state of public business it will be impossible to find time for this, unless an opportunity should arise on the Estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very general desire in all parts of the House that this question should be discussed at an early date. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a most controversial subject?

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter cannot now be debated.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATION PAYMENTS (ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS).

Mr. HAYES: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received by His Majesty's Government from Germany as reparation payments; the cost of the Army of Occupation; the number and amount of claims paid out of the
£5,000,000 fund in respect of loss or damage by enemy action; and similar information with respect to the supplementary £300,000 fund?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The amount of reparation payments received by the United Kingdom (apart from payments for cost of occupation, etc.) is approximately £20,000,000; the cost of the British Army of Occupation in the six years since the Armistice has been about £59,000,000, practically all in the earlier years; up to the present date £4,576,057 has been paid out of the £5,000,000 grant in respect of 44,961 claims and £264,128 out of the £300,000 in respect of 23,105 claims.

Mr. HAYES: Are the Government prepared to consider the question of the disposal of the surplus, approximately £350,000?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If there is any saving it would, in the normal course, revert to the Exchequer, but the money has been assigned to a particular purpose, and we must carefully consider its future destination.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he anticipates that the first £10,000,000 of reduction in the Supply Services will take effect in respect of the Estimates for the current year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative. I do not exclude the possibility of effecting some saving even on the current year's Estimates, but in the Budget speech I was speaking of an overhaul of the Estimates for next year. I am not, of course, giving any pledge that such a reduction will be effected. I only set it up as an object of extreme national importance towards which the Government, in all its Departments, must earnestly strive.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any of the more valuable plumage seized under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, has been sold for
re-export; and whether any instructions have been issued which would permit of this being done?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I am informed that the existing Departmental instructions do not permit of the sale of seized plumage for re-export.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MALE CLERICAL OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Mr. MAXTON: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of promotions of male clerical officers to the junior executive class and the higher clerical class, respectively, since April, 1924, and the names of the Departments, together with the numbers of the promotions involved, in which the promotions have been made?

Mr. GUINNESS: The figures for which the hon. Member asks are being collected and will be circulated as soon as available.

POST OFFICE (WAR BONUS).

Mr. J. HUDSON: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General why his Department are refusing the War bonus to Post Office servants who were called up under the Military Service Acts but who received their civil pay?

Mr. GUINNESS: As I explained in Debate on the 23rd February last, War bonus arrears are not payable to Post Office servants who were deemed to have been enlisted under the Military Service Acts because the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Pidduck and others are not applicable to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name ofCaptain GARRO-JONES:
58. To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any collectors of Income Tax are paid by way of commission on the amounts of tax they collect; and, if so, whether he will state the rates at which the commission is paid, the total amount of remuneration so computed, and the highest remuneration paid to any collector of income Tax in 1924–25?

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. May I point out that one of the questions standing in my name has been postponed by request. In those circumstances, am I not in Order in putting Question No. 58?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid not, under the Rules of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY PARCELS.

Colonel DAY: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to making the benefits of London shopping available to a large number of country dwellers, he will state what action is being taken with a view to the cash-on-delivery system of parcel posting being adopted by the Post Office?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am unable to add anything to the reply on this subject given to the hon. Member for Central Nottingham on the 10th instant, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this system is working with great success in the Dominions; that it would be of very great service to tradesmen and the public alike, and that it would probably bring great revenue to his Department if it were introduced here?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have already said that this is a matter of inquiry by the Government, and that these and all other relevant considerations are borne in mind.

Colonel DAY: When may we hope to have the Report of that inquiry?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not able to say.

PRESS CABLE RATES (AUSTRALIA).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Pacific Cable Board, the Australian Government and his own Department have agreed to a reduction in existing Press cable rates to Australia to 6d. per word, he will, in view of the great importance of cheapening inter-Empire communications, urge the Treasury to expedite this unanimous request at the earliest possible opportunity?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My acquiescence in this proposal was given subject to the concurrence of the Treasury and the Pacific Cable Board, who are primarily concerned in it so far as Great Britain is concerned, and pending the consideration by those authorities of the points referred to in the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 17th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, I can add nothing to that reply.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Did not the official who represented the Treasury at the conference which took place, agree with this proposal?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Obviously that question must be addressed to the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WIDOW'S CLAIM.

Mr. GROVES: 67.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider the circumstances attending the refusal of pension to the widow of Private Arthur Frye, No. 296770, who was demobilised in March, 1919, awarded a disablement pension for rheumatism and gastritis, and who died in October, 1923; and whether, as there is a large family of young children dependent upon the efforts of the mother, he will reconsider the position of liability for pension?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The claim in this case has already been given very careful consideration by the Ministry, but my right hon. Friend has been advised that the cause of the late soldier's death cannot be connected with his war service or with any disablement arising therefrom. An appeal against this decision has been disallowed by the Independent Appeal Tribunal. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any fresh evidence of a material character which would justify the adoption of the course suggested.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the doctor who attended this man at his death, which took place in West Ham Hospital, stated at the inquiry that in his opinion the gassing which this man underwent in the War was a contributory cause of death?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am not aware of that. I looked up the case yesterday, and I saw the letter written by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) to the hon. Member last year, which clearly stated the reasons why this suggestion could not be entertained.

LOCAL COMMITTEES (ANONYMOUS LETTERS).

Mr. W. BAKER: 68.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is with his authority that members of local war pensions committees are reprimanded for declining to take notice of anonymous letters relating to local pensioners; and whether he will review decisions of this character and institute a change of policy?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am not aware that any members of war pensions committees have been reprimanded in the circumstances stated.

Mr. BAKER: If I send the hon. and gallant Gentleman full particulars with regard to cases, will he look into them?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Most certainly. I shall be very glad to receive them.

QUEEN MARY'S HOSPITAL, ROEHAMPTON.

Colonel DAY: 69.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that inmates of the Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, awaiting operations are only allowed leave passes from 4 p.m. until 9 p.m. daily; and, in order that these men may have more opportunities of visiting their families and friends, will he suggest that the medical officer in charge allows the patients longer periods of leave during the daytime, provided that this is not likely to interfere with medical treatment?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The Regulations as to leave of absence which are in force in the hospital referred to apply equally to all Ministry hospitals. The Regulations are drawn as generously as possible consistently with the interests of the patients, who, it must be remembered, are in these hospitals for the purpose of medical or surgical treatment, and I am advised that they cannot be extended with advantage.

ROYAL WARRANTS (AMENDMENT).

Mr. OLIVER: 70.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to issue a new warrant repealing the article in the Royal Warrant for 1919 which provides for the reduction of war pensions to 20 per cent. above the rates authorised in the Royal Warrant for 1918?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The question whether any amendment of Article 24a of the Royal Warrant of 1919 (and of the corresponding Articles of other Royal Warrants or Orders) is necessary, will be considered in due course.

Mr. OLIVER: 71.
asked the Minister of Pensions why it was considered necessary to notify pensioners of all ranks that their pension was liable to reduction on the fall of the cost of living figures in 1926, as no reduction is to be made?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: In fairness to pensioners it has been the practice of the Ministry since 1919 to append to every notification of pension award an intimation of the provisions of the Warrant affecting the amount of pension as operative from time to time in accordance with the formally announced decision of the Government.

DISALLOWED APPEAL (C. W. BRIDGEMAN).

Mr. W. BAKER: 72.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. C. W. Bridgeman, of 74, Lyppiatt Road, Redfield, Bristol, has had his pension stopped in spite of the fact that he was in August, 1922, admitted to be suffering from a 20 per cent. permanent disability for which he was awarded a pension; that the varicose veins from which Mr. Bridgeman suffered were seriously aggravated by his military service; that such aggravation could not fail to have a permanent effect owing to the nature of the trouble; and whether he will take steps to secure that the pension will be restored?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Mr. Bridge-man, who, on enlistment in June, 1918, was found to be suffering from varicose veins, was discharged from service four months later owing to this ailment, and the condition was accepted as aggravated by service. He was in receipt of pension until August, 1922, when it was medically considered that the temporary effects of aggravation by service had passed away.
He appealed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in November of the same year, but his appeal was disallowed, and the Ministry's decision upheld. The decision of the Tribunal is final, and I am not aware of any circumstances which would justify me in reopening the case.

Mr. BAKER: Seeing that Mr. Bridge-man's condition is said to be considerably worse than it was at the time when he was last examined, can he be re-examined to see what his condition is?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I shall be glad to discuss the question with him, but he must remember that the Appeal Tribunal did confirm the Ministry's decision in the case.

Major COLFOX: How much active war service, if any, did this man perform?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot state. He had only four months in the Service.

ADMINISTRATION (BARROW).

Mr. BROMLEY: 73.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he has received complaints from the Barrow and district war pensions committee of the treatment of pensioners in that area at the hands of the district commissioner of medical services for the area, and that pensioners are refusing to go before this doctor again under any circumstances, although willing to appear before any other medical man; and will he have full inquiry made with a view to more considerate treatment of war pensioners by the district commissioner or his replacement?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend is satisfied, as he has already stated, that the administration of treatment and allowances under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant is being carried out in. this area fairly, in accordance with the terms of the Warrant. Steps are being taken to remind the war pensions committee that if in any particular case they consider there is ground for the man's complaint, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider the case.

Mr. BROMLEY: 74.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the feeling in the Barrow and district war pensions area caused by his proposal to amalgamate that area with the Westmorland,
Lancashire, and district area; that some five-eighths of the cases dealt with in the two areas are within the boundaries of the borough of Barrow-in-Furness; and that his proposal would leave some 500 square miles of country with area officers only on the extreme edges; and, if so, will he consult the Barrow and district war pensions committee before any change is made?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The Barrow and district war pensions committee have already been consulted, and their proposals in the matter are at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (HOME-GROWN FRUIT).

Mr. SHEPPERSON: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements, if any, have been made by his Department on behalf of fruit of home food production to promote the sale of fruit at the British Empire Exhibition; and what reports have been called for and received from the Ministry's marketing officers in regard generally to the facilities available for encouraging the sale of English foodstuffs at the exhibition?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Mr. E. Wood): I have been asked to reply. The British Empire Exhibition, as its name implies is, of course, designed to further the interests of producers in all parts of the Empire, and producers and distributors of home-grown foodstuffs are, through their own organisations, in the best position to take advantage of the exhibition for this end. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider them.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the provisions made for promoting the sale of British-grown fruit are equitable in relation to the provisions made for the exhibition of fruit grown within the Dominions or Colonies?

Mr. HURD: Since this question was last raised, has the Minister been to the exhibition and seen what a poor show British home produce is making?

Mr. J. JONES: Is there any provision made at the exhibition for an exhibition of Dead Sea fruit from the Tory Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. VIANT: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state at what date did the Air Council inaugurate their proposals for the running of a State airship service to India and the East, and also for the building of two 5,000,000 cubic feet airships for this purpose?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The programme of airship development, which does not involve, however, the running of a State airship service to India and the East, was framed in the Spring of 1924. The Supplementary Estimate of expenditure required for its initiation was laid before the House on the 20th May, 1924, and voted on the 4th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATHOLOGICAL LABORATORIES.

Mr. GROVES: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the handicap to local medical research committees in the non-provision of pathological laboratories in connection with local hospitals; and whether, in connection with the Government's plans of research work, he will consider the provision of such equipment for the use of local medical men?

Sir K. WOOD: There are no funds available at present for the provision of pathological laboratories for the assistance of local committees of this kind. In any future developments of health policy the provision of such laboratories will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — TYPHOID FEVER, BETHNAL GREEN.

Colonel DAY: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from the Metropolitan Borough Council of Southwark regarding a recent outbreak of typhoid fever at Bethnal Green which was traceable to milk affected by a specific human source; will he, in the interests of a pure milk supply, make such order that early notice of any illness of any of the principals or employés of a dairy business shall be made to the local medical officer of health, and that such notice shall become a legal
obligation; and will he consider the advisability of power being vested in medical officers of health so as to allow of medical inspection of persons occupied with the production or distribution of milk?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Stratford and Cardiff South on the 18th instant.

Colonel DAY: In view of the very considerable danger to the public, cannot the hon. Gentleman introduce some special safeguard to prevent any similar occurrence?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the replies I have given, he will see that the suggestions referred to are being considered in connection with certain Orders which are about to be made.

Colonel DAY: When may we hope to know what those Orders are?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (NEW FACTORIES).

Major GLYN: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give effect to the principle that firms or public companies inaugurating factories or other businesses in rural areas should take into account the necessity of providing housing accommodation for either the total number of workers who will be engaged in such work, or a proportion of such workers; and at what proportion of the total number of houses he would be prepared to fix the quota required to be provided by such companies?

Sir K. WOOD: While my right hon. Friend is anxious to facilitate by all means at his disposal the provision of housing accommodation for the employés of new undertakings, he does not think that it would be practicable! to introduce legislation making the provision of such accommodation compulsory, or to fix a. quota as suggested in the last part of the question. My right hon. Friend is glad to say that a considerable number of houses are already being erected by firms for their workpeople.

Oral Answers to Questions — DESTITUTE PERSONS.

Mr. CLUSE (for Mr. T. KENNEDY): 84.
asked the Minister of Health, seeing that unemployment of large numbers of persons is likely to continue for some time, that consequently there will be a large number of destitute persons on the road seeking work, that a large number of casual wards have recently been closed, and that stone-pounding is now a prescribed task that may be given in all the provincial wards that are open, and which is intended and likely to deter many from seeking relief in a casual ward, with the result that deaths from starvation may be expected, whether he will take steps to secure that in any case of death from starvation or accelerated by privation, so found by inquest, the coroner shall make a report to the Ministry of Health, giving the particulars usual in similar returns that were made from about 1870 to 1918?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend knows of no justification for the statement made by the hon. Member and he is quite unable to accept the suggestion in the first part of the question. His officers make close inquiries into any case in which there is any suggestion that a defect in the Poor Law administration may have in any degree contributed to a death of the kind referred to and he does not think that it is necessary to ask for such an official report as is suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have given any consideration to the increasingly serious position of the coal-mining industry; and whether, in view of the gravity of the problem and of the situation which would arise in the event of a dispute in this industry, he can state what action is contemplated by the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am, of course, aware that discussions are now going on between representatives of the colliery owners and miners that may have important, and perhaps serious, consequences. But it is essential, in my opinion, that every opportunity should
be given to those engaged in an industry to settle these matters for themselves, if they can, and that the Government should only intervene in the last resort. This point, I am glad to say, has not yet been reached, and may not be reached, and it would be premature for me to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that apart altogether from the wages question, which is one thing, the depression in the coal trade is a serious depression and that pits are being closed; and has he nothing to do in regard to that aspect of the case?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that arises out of the question. I admit the seriousness of it, but if there should be a happy event to the discussions which are taking place the situation might be ameliorated.

Mr. LUNN: You, Mr. Speaker, rather stopped me from asking a question of the Secretary of Mines a few moments ago and I would like now to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government have any policy whatever to deal with the growing seriousness of unemployment in the mining industry.

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to that question is really the answer which I have given to the hon. Member who asked the previous supplementary question. If we are fortunate enough to find that the trade itself can so adjust its circumstances and conditions, that it may be able to compete in the world's markets, the question solves itself. If they should be unable to do that, I quite admit that a position of seriousness and difficulty arises.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask, relating to the answer given to my own question, whether it is the policy of the Government to wait until a deadlock arises before bringing its influence to bear on both sides?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not believe that interference by a Government, unless it is desired by both sides and can be of use, is ever of any real or permanent help in settling questions of this kind. I think at this moment premature interference would do a great deal more harm than good.

Mr. GREENALL: Seeing that the Prime Minister has in this House given advice in connection with peace, does be not think it wise and necessary to do something now with a view to having that spirit prevailing among the parties concerned in this matter?

Mr. SPENCER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the time has arrived when this House should deal with the mines on the same lines as it dealt with the railways not long ago?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have yet to be convinced that this House is the best medium for interfering.

Mr. J. JONES: What are you here for then?

Mr. HUDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that when dealing with two sides in a dispute, it is usually the case that a third side comes into question and that is the side of the whole community; and is he prepared to consider that aspect of the case and to indicate what steps should be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared, at this moment, to admit that there is a dispute. As I see it, both parties who are interested in the question, the employers and the men, are endeavouring to see if they can find a solution of the difficulties which are common to both of them.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the owners have already intimated to the Press that they are giving notice for the determination of the agreement this week?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no knowledge of what they propose.

Mr. VARLEY: May we assume that in using the words "may not be reached" the Prime Minister based them upon information which is not available to all of us. In his original reply the right hon. Gentleman said that a crisis might not be reached. Is that statement based upon private information?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is the expression of what I consider at the moment to be a legitimate hope.

MINISTERS OF RELIGION (REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, 1st July, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

Reported with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Vice-Admiral Sir WILLIAM REGINALD HALL, K.C.M.G., C.B., for County of East Sussex (Eastbourne Division).

IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ACT (1899) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill. as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Mitchell Banks, Brigadier - General Clifton Brown, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Sir Edward Ilife, Sir Herbert Nield, Major Price, Mr. Rye, and Major Sir Archibald Sinclair; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Geoffrey Butler, Mr. Cadogan, Mr. Dugald Cowan, Mr. John Grace, Mr. Harland Mr. Looker, Mr. MacRobert, Mr. Otho Nicholson, Mr. Smithers, Brigadier - General Warner, and Mr. Waterhouse.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Tithe Bill): Mr. Barr, Major Birchall, Mr. Blundell, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Guinness, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Sir Charles Oman, Sir Beddoe Rees, Sir Henry Slesser, Mr. Solicitor-General, Major Oliver Stanley, Colonel Wedgwood, Major Sir Granville Wheler, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Mr. Edward Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Might I ask what Amendments you propose to call, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I stated yesterday, I had the advantage on Monday morning of a consultation with Members from different parts of the House, and I propose to select the questions to be raised to-day in accordance with the result of that conference. The first question will be the Motion to omit the Silk Duties from the Finance Bill, and it is suggested that that might take about two hours. The second is the omission of the Lace Duty, and the third the Motion to omit the Clause with regard to the Super-tax, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). Then there is the Clause dealing with the Death Duties in the case of agricultural land, and, if we should have adequate time left, we could deal with any questions that may arise on the new proposals of the Government in the Schedules, or any details that Members might wish to raise on those Schedules.

Captain BENN: May I ask your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that if we divide on the Motion to omit Clause 4, we put ourselves logically in the position of voting against the Customs Duty while leaving the Excise Duty in operation, and perhaps, if the discussion took place on both duties in one Debate, there might be an opportunity to divide on Clause 5, which raises rather a separate point?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I explained yesterday, if the House throws out the Customs Duty, there can be no doubt that the Government themselves would have to leave out the Excise Duty, so that the purpose would be effected by the first discussion and division.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: As you do not propose to call the Amendment to omit Clause 9, may we have a discussion on the Imperial Preference Clauses in the Schedule?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will consider that. That is a new point.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Arising out of your statement, Mr. Speaker, in regard
to how you intend taking the Clauses, may I ask what you intend doing with the Amendment in my name, and in the names of several of my colleagues, to insert, in Clause 8, the words "provided that such articles have been produced under fair conditions of labour"? It is a new principle, which has never yet been discussed in a Finance Bill, to my knowledge—it was not discussed during the Committee stage—and I think that, in the interests of the House as well as of the public, it ought to have an opportunity now upon the Report stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: My attention has been called this morning to that Amendment on the Paper, but, apart from the question of selection, I could not take that Amendment, because it is too indefinite. If the hon. Member wished to bring up, on some other occasion, such a proposal, he would have to make it more complete and definite than he has now got it. I will on some future occasion endeavour to find an opportunity for him if he, on his part, will produce a more practical and definite proposal, but, so far as to-day is concerned, I am not in a position to select that Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not just as definite in its statement as the statement laid down by the Government with regard to Imperial Preference, namely, that certain classes of goods produced in British Colonies should have the right to come into this country at a preferential tariff as compared with foreign produce? Cannot we, therefore, have a right in this House to lay down terms and conditions upon which labour employed on these articles shall work? That surely is not a vague term, since the conditions of labour generally are ruled by the country or colony in which the produce is manufactured.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will gladly give attention to any further Amendment the hon. Member may put down, but on the present occasion I cannot go beyond the decision I arrived at in consultation yesterday.

Mr. MACLEAN: If I draft a manuscript Amendment that will be definite in its character, will you, Sir, be prepared to accept it or rule that it may be debated this afternoon?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, not on this occasion. In consultation with the hon. Member's friends, I came to an understanding yesterday.

Mr. MACLEAN: In consulting with my colleagues yesterday, may I remind you, Sir, that this Amendment was not then on the Paper, and consequently you could not have considered it among the other Amendments that were considered? That is why I am pressing for its consideration now.

Mr. SPEAKER: I agree that that is so. At the same time, I cannot alter my decision, which I have just announced to the House.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [22nd June] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.

Which Amendment was to leave out Clause 4 (Customs duties on silk and artificial silk).—[Mr. Riley.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SNOWDEN: I shall not keep the House for any length of time on the Clause that is now before it. Those who were present near the end of the sitting last night will remember the proposal to leave out Clause 4, which proposes to impose Customs duties upon silk and artificial silk, and that on that Amendment being moved, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose at once to say he would not be able to accept it. In the interests of the right hon. Gentleman himself, I am sorry that he has announced that irrevocable decision, for, if the right hon. Gentleman is still under the delusion that these duties are popular in the country, he is the only man in the land who is suffering from that mental delusion. These duties have no friends anywhere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has defended them principally on revenue grounds, and I propose to say just a word or two upon that aspect of the question. The right hon. Gentleman has invited, by these proposals, quite an unnecessary amount of trouble, and he has caused unnecessary friction, irritation and opposition. From the point of view of revenue, there was no obligation upon the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to impose any new duties whatever. I can imagine circumstances where a Chancellor had a surplus and where it might be necessary to impose additional taxes, but that could only arise where the Chancellor of the Exchequer was called upon to face some new and very heavy public expenditure, which is not the case this year.
4.0 P.M.
There is no proposal before the House of Commons involving additional expenditure except the Widows and Orphans' Pensions Bill, and that will not call for a single penny of revenue from the right hon. Gentleman during the current financial year. He had a very large surplus, and he has adopted the unprecedented course of giving away more taxation than he can afford and of obtaining compensation by the imposition of new taxes. My point, therefore, is that from the revenue point of view there is no need whatever for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cause all this friction, to upset a great industry, and to arouse widespread opposition for the purpose of the comparatively small amount of revenue which will be derived from these taxes. As revenue taxes, these duties are open to every possible objection. A tax should be imposed and levied in a way whereby the least friction will be caused, the least opposition will be aroused, but I am quite sure that even the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman could not have devised any taxes which would less conform to that very important and necessary canon of taxation. These duties violate every one of the recognised canons of taxation. It is quite true that there are varying degrees of evil in indirect taxes, but the Silk Duties now proposed and embodied in this Bill are the very worst form and have in the most aggravated degree every one of the evils always inherent in indirect taxation. They cause, as I have already said, a great amount of friction and they interfere with trade. The incidence of the tax is quite uncertain, and it is one which the right hon. Gentleman himself says can be evaded if persons are indisposed or unwilling to buy the articles which are subject to the duties. Therefore, from the point of view of revenue, there is nothing whatever to be said in favour of them.
That is the excuse or the reason which the right hon. Gentleman has given for
imposing these new duties, but I venture to say that is not really the chief purpose. When the right hon. Gentleman first proposed these duties there was not, I admit, much of the element of Protection in them. There was a slight degree of Protection, and he justified that on the ground that it would be some compensation to the home manufacturer and trader for the expense and irritation to which he was subjected by the imposition of the Excise Duty. I doubt if there ever have been proposed duties which, in the course of their passage through the House, have undergone such strange transformation. The original small element of Protection has now become a very large measure of Protection, and these duties now are distinctly protective in their character. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself, in what I thought was certainly an impromptu and rather an unfortunate observation in the course of the Debate during the Committee stage upon these duties, said that they were part of a scientific tariff.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): No, I did not.

Mr. SNOWDEN: These were the right hon. Gentleman's very words. We valued them too highly at the moment to forget them:
We are engaged in framing a scientific tariff.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was dealing with the Silk Duties and the Silk Duties alone, and I said, so far as the Silk Duties were concerned, that they were framed on the lines of a scientific tariff.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not capable of discerning any distinction between the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has now made and what I said.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The distinction is perfectly clear. I was dealing with these duties as an isolated instance in our fiscal system. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they are part of a general design, and that has no warrant at all.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The only interpretation that could possibly have been put upon the words which the right hon. Gentleman used that evening were that these duties were part of a scientific
tariff. "We are engaged," he said, "in framing a scientific tariff."

Mr. CHURCHILL: On silk.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman was certainly discussing the Silk Duties. I have searched through the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT to find what the right hon. Gentleman said. I may have overlooked it, but I certainly cannot find it. There is, however, no doubt in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of my hon. Friends behind me, that that was the impression created by the words which he used, and I submit that the only possible impression was that he was engaged in framing a scientific tariff. The right hon. Gentleman now says that that observation had reference only to silk. I am quite ready to confine the right hon. Gentleman's words to silk. We now learn, therefore, that he was framing a scientific tariff for silk. But I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced these taxes solely for revenue purposes. Now he says that these duties are a scientific tariff for silk. Let us just look at the right hon. Gentleman's scientific tariff. He told us that he had been giving long consideration to this question of an imposition of a duty upon silk. It had baffled all his predecessors, but he had succeeded where they had failed. After having given months of consideration to the advice of all the experts upon silk and artificial silk in all the Government Departments, he put his scheme before the House. Where is that scheme now? The concessions, the alterations, and the changes which the right hon. Gentleman has made prove conclusively that he had given no intelligent consideration to the question before be submitted these duties to the House.
Let us just contrast the duties as originally proposed by the right hon. Gentleman with the scale of duties now embodied in this Bill. Take, for instance, artificial silk waste. He originally proposed that it should be 3s. a 1b. Now he is proposing 1s. Was 3s. a scientific tariff at the end of April, or has he discovered that a duty of 1s. will make his scheme a scientific tariff? Take the case of raw natural silk. Originally, it was 4s.; now it is 3s. The most ridiculous of the original proposals—and the proposal is still ridiculous though in a somewhat smaller degree—was to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent. upon im-
ported manufactured articles which contained any proportion of silk. All the changes which have taken place in trying to make this tariff more scientific have been to make it more a protective tax.
Nothing, I think, could better illustrate how little consideration—I will not say "little consideration," but "little intelligent consideration"—had been given to these proposals before they were introduced into the House than the form in which this original 33⅓ per cent. duty appeared in the Budget statement. Then any article which contained even a strand of silk or artificial silk was to be taxed at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. upon the whole manufactured article. It is a little less ridiculous now, but it is still ridiculous. What does he now propose? If the value of the silk or artificial silk exceeds 20 per cent., then the whole of the article is to be taxed at the rate of 33i per cent. That is not merely a tax upon silk, but it is a tax upon all the other component parts of that article. In the case of clothing, it is a tax upon wool and a tax upon cotton. In the case of a portmanteau which happens to have a silk lining the value of which exceeds 20 per cent., the leather and the buckles and everything else in the portmanteau has to be taxed at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. That is in conformity with the right hon. Gentleman's ideas of a scientific tariff. Therefore, this is not merely a tax upon silk and artificial silk, but it is a heavy tax upon a large number of other articles. In imposing these duties, and especially in imposing the protective character of these duties, the right hon. Gentleman has done something which has never been a part of any scientific tariff proposals in this country. He has imposed a tax upon raw materials.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Sugar.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not a protective duty. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should have said "sugar."

Mr. CHURCHILL: Sugar is a raw material.

Mr. SNOWDEN: But it is not a protective tax. Why should the right hon. Gentleman throw that out at me? Did I propose the Sugar Duty? I did not propose it. It was the party with which the right hon. Gentleman is now associated
which re-imposed the Sugar Duty at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was defending the British Empire in the South African War.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of making statements of the kind. He must not forget that last year he also reimposed the Sugar Duty with all the force of a great Government majority.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that anybody is going to be fooled by a statement of that kind? His party imposed. I did not reimpose the duty. I reduced the duty by more than a half.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have been mulcted in our sugar to a very great amount during the last 12 months in consequence of the ukase of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SNOWDEN: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by talking of having been mulcted when the price of sugar is only half what it was 12 months ago?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Made to pay more.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The price of sugar is only one-half what it was 12 months ago. But this is irrelevant. It is not my fault, but that of the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced the matter, for I do not want to get into a controversy with you, Mr. Speaker. Nobody, I say, is going to be fooled by a statement of that kind. I was dealing with the tax on raw material when the right hon. Gentleman rather drew me aside. I have said that no Tariff Reformer ever suggested that for protective purposes there should be a duty imposed upon a raw material which was an important commodity and a necessary article in one of our important industries.
What has the right hon. Gentleman done? He has upset the trade in Lancashire and Yorkshire. The hon. Member who usually sits on one of the benches opposite had the audacity to say last week that there was no opposition to this duty throughout Lancashire. That statement has been denied by every representative man in the Lancashire cotton trade, and has received no support at all. The opposition to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, both in Lancashire and Yorkshire, is as strong as it was when he first made it. There are hon.
Members in this House, I suppose, who might certainly claim to know something of the opinion of Lancashire, and we can have no better evidence of the unpopularity of this proposal in Lancashire than the fact that there is no candidate for Oldham to-day who is defending these duties. In spite, therefore, of the Liberal and Tory pact which will operate to some extent to-morrow, every vote given to-morrow will be a vote given for a candidate who is opposed to these duties. The right hon. Gentleman is throwing these trades into a state of commotion at a time when all hopes have been centred upon progress. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) speaking yesterday, said that there was a widespread opinion among commercial people in the country that this Government cared nothing at all about industry. He said that the action of the Government in regard to that particular question gave a good deal of support to the widespread opinion as to the lack of sympathy which this Government had with trade and industry. So much for that. In his original speech when introducing the Budget the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said nothing about rebates. That was an afterthought.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No!

Mr. SNOWDEN: Well, it came about three hours after the Budget was introduced, and only after the right hon. Gentleman had been prompted by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) did he make the admission to the House that rebates would be introduced. In view of the opposition to these duties in Lancashire and Yorkshire, if these are going to be revenue-producing, he need not look to Macclesfield for that revenue, for if that revenue is to come it will come from Lancashire and Yorkshire; there will be no possibility of the development of this industry in Macclesfield. As I said before, hampering as these duties will be to the trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire, they are not going to kill the trades. They will hamper them. They will prevent trade expanding at a rate at which it otherwise would expand, and continue to grow. Doubtless the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get revenue, and perhaps this year, but he will get
it at the expense of having hampered what is the most promising industry in the country to-day. I will leave it at that.
Does anybody believe that rebates are going to help? There is no man in the trade who believes that this rebate system will not cause expense, worry and delay, and hamper industry in every way. The rebate system will work. I know it will. Of course, any rebate system can be made to work, but at what expense? It will work at the expense I have already mentioned—at enormous expense, and the delays will be great. It must be so. It cannot be otherwise. At a time when everything ought to be done to stimulate a progressive industry the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes and imposes these duties with the certain result that I have indicated. I do not want to speak any longer. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not, perhaps, so easy on the subject, or is happy with this Debate.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am enjoying it,

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have dealt broadly with our objections to this scheme and our arguments for rejecting it. The proposals are unnecessary as a Budget Duty. They are Protectionist in their character. They will be difficult to carry out. We object to them because they are going to hamper trade, they are an unnecessary expense, and will cause irritation. For these reasons we ask the House to reject this Clause.

Mr. HARRIS: I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have replied to what has been said by the late Chancellor, and his very damaging criticisms of these new duties. It is true when first introduced they created very little criticism. They seemed to be very innocent proposals put forward for revenue purposes only. But I cannot help thinking that had the Chancellor of the Exchequer realised the magnitude of his proposals, with all the dislocation and disturbance they will cause, he would have paused before he touched this Silk Tax. He himself admitted that owing to the need of secrecy he had not been able to make a very full or adequate inquiry into the industry. He knew he was touching an old industry and a new industry, but he had the idea that these were merely luxuries. However, by now
I am sure he has learned his mistake. He has spent days and weeks in meeting deputations and reading reports of what has turned out to be a very complicated and involved industry. If he would take the House into his confidence he would have to admit that he was sorry that he had ever touched silk and had, instead, hoped for some other source of revenue.
I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the duty. I do blame him for sticking to it. If he were really a big man, a big Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would reorganise his mistake, and come down to the House even at this late period of the Finance Bill, admit his mistake, and withdraw these proposals. I do not believe that with one or two exceptions this tax has a single friend in the House. One exception perhaps is the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). There may be people who are prepared to apologise for this duty. I do not know one single Member of the House, I do not know a single manufacturer, except perhaps a few manufacturers of tissues made from real silk, who are prepared to defend these taxes either from a revenue point of view or from an industrial point of view.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: We are all prepared to defend them.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth is a very loyal and devoted friend of the Government, but is he prepared to defend these taxes as purely revenue taxes? After all, that is the justification that has been put forward by the Government, a justification which has been emphasised over and over again. What has been said was that these duties were not put forward for purposes of protection, were harmless in that direction, and were put forward purely for revenue purposes. The Chancellor said that if you get revenue he is quite prepared for what goods may come in; and the more there were the better he would be pleased. Anyone who studies these taxes with any knowledge of the textile industry and all its ramifications must see that they are going to do, as the late Chancellor so well pointed out, irreparable damage. After all, what is the most important industry, taking it as a whole, in the country? The textile industry, lumping together the cotton, wool, and all the various textile indus-
tries, spinners, weavers, makers-up of garments in the country. At a very critical time in its history this disorganised trade, very slowly recovering from the crisis caused by the War, finds the Government putting their clumsy hand in an interfering way on it and on the whole of the textile industry.
One of the great troubles of the textile trade has been the decreased production of raw material. During the ten years from 1913 to 1923 there was a decrease of no less than 3,000,000,000 lbs. in the annual production of cotton, and a decrease of 267,000,000 lbs. in the production of wool. The only raw material that has shown buoyancy is this new material produced by the ingenuity of British chemists, British manufactures, and British industrialists, artificial silk. It has shown an increase in the same period of 75,000,000 lbs., and is increasing every year by leaps and bounds and now the Government come along and treats it as a luxury and as something to be discouraged. If the State has refrained from taxing it and had allowed it to continue its natural progress there is very little doubt that in a few years it would have become, possibly, a rival to raw cotton, if not to wool. One of the materials it is manufactured from is cotton waste; but the greater part of the artificial silk made has wood pulp as its chief component, and with the progress of science and the improvement in our methods of manufacture there is little reason to doubt that before long the troubles and problems of Lancashire with respect to supplies of raw material would have been, if not solved, largely relieved by artificial silk. It is most unfortunate, at this period of unemployment, when the one things we want is to encourage the export trade and to stimulate all means of production that the State should interfere with a raw material by treating it as a means of producing revenue.
When the Government carry out their policy we shall see what an immense number of difficulties they will let industry in for. The troubles of the manufacturer are great enough at present; markets are more difficult to find than ever before, and he has to face competition on an immense scale owing to developments on the Continent of Europe and now the State comes along and introduces this taxation, with its
complex system of drawbacks. Let hon. Members look at the Schedule. There is a fashion now for cross-word puzzles. I should like some newspaper to offer a prize to anybody who can give a simple interpretation of all the methods of getting drawbacks mentioned in the Schedule. We warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early stages of the Bill that the Schedule would have to be constantly altered and added to, and later in the evening, or it may be early in the morning, we shall have to consider still further Amendments. We know that Members of this House are expert in understanding Bills, but how is the unfortunate manufacturer and trader who desires to find markets for his goods going to understand all the ramifications of this complex Schedule? When a foreign trader desires to buy our goods, the merchant will not be able to give him an ordinary net quotation, but will have to refer him to that complex Schedule which the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has drawn up; and when the prospective buyer of the goods we are so anxious to sell sees all these perplexities it will not be surprising if he passes by and decides to buy his goods from another quarter of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) referred to the great importance of this new raw material to Lancashire and Yorkshire. In previous Debates we have been told how it has been twisted, spun and woven with cotton or with wool. In one part of Yorkshire quite a new industry has sprung up in mixing artificial silk with wool; and the same sort of thing is going on in certain centres of Lancashire. It will be a comparatively simple thing to claim drawbacks for textile piece goods, though even there it will mean disputes, delays and discouragements to our export trade. When the exporter tries to get his goods shipped he will constantly be in conflict with the Customs officials, which is Bad for trade and discourages enterprise. But it is quite a mistake to think that our exports go out in this very simple form. The other day I took the trouble to get a list of the many articles in which artificial silk and real silk are incorporated. The list is a long one, and I will not venture to give it to the House. Although the percentage of
the silk actually used in these made-up articles is not large, whether it be a case of ladies' hand bags, or silk shoes, or other articles, the extra cost in respect of the duty levied on the silk will make the price higher, while at the same time the percentage of the silk in the article will not be large enough to enable the exporter to claim a drawback. When the shipper of goods containing artificial silk finds that he has to go through all the intricacies of Customs forms, he may come to the conclusion that the gain is not worth the labour and there will be—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. HARRIS: I want to say, in conclusion, that in its final form this particular duty has another vicious principle. Originally it was purely an Excise Duty. Now, after the attempt to conciliate first this interest and then that interest, first Macclesfield and then some other district, the duty has taken a purely Protectionist form. That is an infringement of the Free Trade principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer swore faithfully to adhere to when he joined this Government; but it has a still more serious aspect, because he has created vested interests. When any attempt is made in the future to alter this tax, either to reduce it or to abolish it, all the various interests that have been created will raise an outcry that the removal of this protection will mean ruin to them. In its final form this duty is not only a handicap to the great textile trade as a whole, is not only going to interfere with our export business, handicapping it and making it more difficult to do business in the markets abroad, but as a Protectionist tax it is going to create vested interests, and that fact will make it difficult to reduce or abolish it. I suppose it is impossible to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this late hour to drop this Clause, but I hope that party predilections will be nut aside, and that large numbers of Members, not only on this side but on the other side, will take the opportunity in the Division Lobbies to protest against a thoroughly bad and vicious tax which infringes all the sound canons of finance, is Protectionist in character, and a handicap to trade and industry.

Mr. REMER: In spite of what the hon. Gentleman has just stated, I think the opposition has absolutely fizzled out, and that even in Lancashire itself the opponents of these duties can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. My object in rising to speak is because certain new facts came to light in Manchester yesterday when I was there which, I think, are of great importance to this question. It has been an old controversy between Free Traders and Tariff Reformers as to who paid import duty. Tariff Reformers of the extreme school stated that an import tax was paid entirely by the foreigner. Free Traders stated that the tax was paid by the consumer. I have never been quite as dogmatic as either, for I have always stated that the tax was sometimes paid by the consumer and sometimes by the foreigner. An interesting thing came to light yesterday as far as Swiss and French manufacturers are concerned. They have cabled to the various people who represent them in Manchester, stating that as from the 1st of July next the extra Is., that is the Is, that exists between the Excise Duty and the Import Duty—that they will reduce their price by exactly that amount, namely Is. per lb. That shows that the argument Free Traders' have used for years has been disproved by facts, and that in this case the tax is being paid entirely by the foreigner. This is a new point which will be of extreme value to the House, and will remove very largely the foundation for the stories which have reached hon. Members opposite that the duties are going to increase the price of working girls1' stockings. I am satisfied that these taxes are going to be of great value to the people of this country, and so far from injuring our trade, I believe they will stimulate it, and will be of great benefit to the unemployed. In my own constituency plans are being developed for a great increase in the artificial silk trade, and I am quite satisfied that there is a new era of hope for the people who are unemployed.

Mr. J. HUDSON: I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be congratulated upon the amount of support his proposals are receiving from hon. Members behind him, because I noticed just now, when attention was called to the fact that 40 Members were not present, that there were only about 10 hon.
Members sitting on the Conservative Benches; and as for the representatives of Lancashire, who certainly have a special duty to perform in regard to this matter, I counted two, or at most only three, of them present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been allowed to let loose this wild dog of silk taxes amongst the delicate scheme which our modern textile industry represents, and there has been nobody on the Conservative Benches who knows the facts well enough to effectively hold him back from the damage that he is doing. In spite of the statements made last week on this question, there continues to be made in Lancashire and Yorkshire, irrespective of our influence upon the various organisations, a very strong protest against these proposals. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) intervened in this Debate to encourage us by telling us that he thought we should get the foreigner to pay this tax. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer many times in the past has dealt with that argument, but I think now the hon. Member for Macclesfield has allowed his enthusiasm to run away with him. It is true that there are cases where the foreigner does pay the tax, but they are very exceptional cases, and this was admitted even in the days of the Free Trade controversy in the White Paper written by Professor Alfred Marshall, which was published in connection with the Free Trade propaganda.
We are now in an exceptional period with regard to the supply of artificial silk yarn. In the last year or two there has been an enormous development in this industry with which those who supply artificial silk yarn cannot cope whether abroad or in this country, and the consequence is that it has been possible to extract a price as the result of these quite temporary conditions out of all proportion to the cost of production. Naturally, when an expedient is introduced, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced in these temporary circumstances, it is possible to compel the foreigner or the supplier in our country to forego some of the extra price which he has been charging to the consumer. It must not be forgotten that in the ordinary course of competition the price would have come down to something akin to the general cost of production.
Although there may now be a temporary opportunity to extract this sum from the foreigner, in the long run when things have generally adapted themselves to the circumstances, it will be the consumer who will pay the full value of the tax.
I have risen more particularly to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a special point, and that is the effect of this tax on the textile industries of Yorkshire. The representatives of the Yorkshire industries have been very anxious to personally place before the Chancellor of the Exchequer their views, but for one reason or another the right hon. Gentleman has not found it possible to accede to their request.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is the hon. Member referring to the operatives?

Mr. HUDSON: I am referring more particularly to the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce, who wished to place before the right hon. Gentleman their views with regard to the tax on woollen tissues that contain less than 5 per cent. of silk. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman failed to find an opportunity for allowing an extremely important matter to be brought before him personally by these representatives of the Yorkshire trades. There is a Convention at Brussels at which a discussion is likely to take place regarding these taxes. The private Secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated to the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce that it would be impossible for him to accede to their request to meet him. The issue I am now raising is an extremely important one because at the present moment Germany has against this country with regard to woollen tissues a tax which I was informed by the President of the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce makes a difference between Is. 7d. and 8s. per yard. The Huddersfield manufacturers are trying very hard to get the German manufacturers to allow woollen tissues to enter into Germany which have less than 5 per cent. silk or artificial silk yarn in their manufacture, and they are asking Germany to allow that cloth to go into Germany free of tax. They are encouraged to believe that it would be possible to get this concession from Germany by the fact that already France, Italy, Belgium, India and Japan have made such a concession, that is to
say that woollen cloth manufactured in Bradford, Huddersfield or elsewhere that contains less than 5 per cent. of silk yarn or silk weft is allowed in each of those countries as if the whole consisted of woollen cloth, and is therefore not taxed according to the high rate at which silk is taxed in those respective countries.
This is an extremely important matter in those five nations and other nations which are considering the matter favourably at the present time. It is very important to retain for our Huddersfield and Bradford trade this concession, because it means more trade and employment for our workers. Now the Yorkshire manufacturers will have to announce in Brussels that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to stand by his proposals, and will put on whatever tax is provided for in the Schedule on materials coming from abroad. Under these circumstances naturally you cannot expect the favourable concession already given by those countries abroad to remain if we persist in keeping up a process not so favourable as their concession is to us.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about a scientific tariff. I remember this question used to be discussed in relation to all those proposals regarding reciprocity which used to form so great a part in the discussions as to what is going to be the scientific effect. Not only will those countries that have allowed this concession to Yorkshire manufacturers be affected by these proposals, but other countries will harden their tariffs against us, and this will make it harder than ever for our Yorkshire manufacturers to get new markets abroad, and it may actually do something to intensify the problem of unemployment from which we are suffering so much at the present time.
Is it likely that Japan, which takes from Yorkshire 16 per cent. of the textile goods which we export, will continue to give us benefits which we apparently are not prepared to give in return. All I can say is that that hope does not seem very well founded and the Yorkshire manufacturers and the textile operatives are all agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has embarked upon a proposition which is going to have extremely bad results for our industry. I hope it is not too late in view of the discussions now going on at Brussels for the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to see whether he cannot considerably modify the proposals he has made with regard to goods that contain 5 per cent. or less of silk or artificial silk yarn in order to meet conditions abroad.
I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these proposals has possibly been led to stick doggedly by them because he feels as the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) tried to tell him that some change of mind has come over those engaged in the textile industries of this country, and that Lancashire is perhaps not quite so much Free Trade as it was in the old days of Free Trade propaganda, and that Yorkshire may be slipping away from the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman has taught them.
5.0 P.M.
I believe the right hon. Gentleman has been encouraged by some proposals made by the Bradford Chamber of Commerce before the last election, in which they were said to be toying with proposals of Protection. I believe that the Bradford Chamber of Commerce is going to learn in practice what Protection actually means to their industry, and although no mistake has been made by the Yorkshire operatives in this matter, or the Lancashire operatives who are strongly opposed to these proposals, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that the result of his Budget and the Silk Duties will be to bring back again the Bradford Chamber of Commerce and all other organisations of textile manufacturers to a belief in those conditions of Free Trade which for a little while they have been deviating from. I feel sure that, although the Chancellor's proposals will have serious effects in preventing the development of our textile industries, in preventing the application of silk finishing, designing and improving of our goods, and to that extent will make it harder to increase the opportunities if employment, he has thrown in the way of people like the Bradford Chamber of Commerce sew opportunities to realise how unsafe is the course of tariffs, which a little while ago they were contemplating.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This discussion about silk is evidently worn threadbare. The picture conjured up by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)
of a tense political crisis, a real injury to a great industry, flagrant violation of every canon of sound finance—this picture, reinforced as it is by what he tells us of the widespread unpopularity of this tax in the country, is singularly belied by the actual state of affairs, when the Opposition party in the House, on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, with a Motion before it for the rejection of the Silk Clause, were not able to keep 40 Members present. That registers, in a simple, practical Parliamentary manner, the utter failure of the Silk Tax campaign. I must say I have hardly ever seen a campaign launched with so much vigour, so much colour, so much imaginative variety, such powerful backing in the newspaper press, such wonderful wealth of fertile exaggeration—I have never seen a campaign launched in such circumstances which petered out so quickly. There is nothing left that I can see of the opposition to the Silk Tax. It is quite true there are arguments we have endeavoured to answer. There are prophecies against which we have, with some moderation and restraint, matched counter-prophecies, the accuracy of which will make themselves known as time goes on. As for the right hon. Gentleman, he, like the boy on the burning deck, standing almost alone, has come forward and endeavoured, in the circumstances in which we dwell, to inflame vehement;, vigorous, grave attacks upon the whole character of these Silk Duties.
The right hon. Gentleman made many complaints. He said there was no need to put the duties on for the sake of Revenue, as we had a surplus to fortify the Revenue. The remissions of taxation given this year, no one knows better than he, except myself, entail larger losses to the Revenue next year than they do in the year in which they are first accorded, and, unless we had produced additional revenues from silk and from the McKenna Duties, it would have been quite impossible to have given the reduction on earned income as against investment income, which is, by universal admission, just, necessary, and, if I may use the word about a remission of taxation—even popular. Then he went on to say that these duties violate every canon of taxation. I say that these duties violate no canon of taxation that has not already been violated by the Sugar
Duties, which, for many years, have been a part of our fiscal armoury. To say that the Silk Duties march on all fours with the Sugar Duties is to understate the case. It is like two centipedes marching together. Silk and sugar are both raw materials of luxury trades, or of quasi-luxury trades. Neither natural silk nor sugar is produced at present in this country. Both, therefore, are taxes on the raw material. In neither case in regard to the natural product is there any need for a countervailing excise. Both silk and sugar form the raw material of important export trades. Both are the subject of an extensive variety of complicated drawbacks. Drawbacks in the case of sugar have been paid without the slightest difficulty or friction.
So, I argue, will be the drawbacks in the case of silk. The drawbacks in the case of sugar, coupled with the duties on sugar, have not prevented the expansion of a powerful, active export trade in sugar products of all kinds. I have already said there are 600 different sugar products being exported from one factory. A similar process will certainly occur in regard to the tax on silk. The more the system of drawbacks has been studied and examined, the more the traders, and those who are to be subjected to it, have felt re-assured, although I will not say completely convinced, after the alarms which were first engendered in their minds. We have been told this is a protective duty on a raw material. It is not a protective duty. When there is no native production, there is no protective duty. You cannot have a protective duty when there is nothing to protect. You have no native industry in sugar, apart from beet sugar, and you put a duty on the raw materials. Similarly in regard to silk.
In the case of artificial silk, you come to a different region, but considering how we have broken into this novel field, we have every reason to congratulate ourselves on the result. It is quite true that we have a powerful domestic artificial silk industry, and, therefore, we have levied a countervailing Excise. That is in accordance with the strictest principles of Free Trade, and although my hon. Friend below the Gangway, I have no doubt, is waiting to attack this manifestation of vice—for which I get a
temporary consolation by an addition to the revenue—it is the case that we have a countervailing Excise, and you cannot say, therefore, from the point of view of fiscal orthodoxy, that we have violated the canons of Free Trade. But then we are told, "Ah, but you have given a favourable turn of the market to the home producer." We have certainly given a favourable turn of the market to the home producer. Following the precedent of Mr. Gladstone in 1863 with regard to the Tobacco Duties, we have felt bound to make similar provision in regard to the Silk Duties. I must admit that, during the course of the Bill, we have somewhat increased that provision, but not to any extent which seriously or even appreciably affects the cost to the consumer or the yield to the State—certainly not to an extent which, in the slightest degree, vitiates or violates the essential revenue character of these duties for the purpose for which they are alone imposed.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman complained of the many changes that have been made, the strange transformation we are witnessing, and, like the Parliamentary artist that he is, he endeavoured to add to the actual facts which were at his disposal by a fertile use of his imagination. It has been said that when I made the Budget speech, I had never foreseen the possibility that drawbacks would be necessary. For weeks before, the Customs had advised me of the kind of drawbacks they thought were necessary, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) asked me that evening whether I proposed to give drawbacks, I said of course there would be drawbacks. I readily admit there have been a good many changes, and there ought to be in the course of shaping a duty of this kind. No one could make this change with the advice only of the skilled officials of the Department, not connected with trade or industry in any way, especially a tax of this kind, which is designed to fit harmoniously, and with the minimum of friction, into a complex and changing industrial condition. Therefore, I proposed to discuss these matters with the trades and industries concerned, and, since then, the discussion has been continued, and there have accordingly been changes. It is well said, there is nothing wrong in change if it is in the right direction.

Mr. SNOWDEN: You are an authority on change.

Mr. CHURCHILL: To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often. It is true of our Silk Duties to-day; I do not wish to carry the application any further. But how much has the change amounted to? After all, I stand here with no other object in my mind but to get revenue. It is your money we want. That is the duty which has been imposed upon me by the House. How much have all these changes cost? I estimate that they will cost us £500,000 in the present year, and £900,000 in a full year. That leaves the yield of the duty £3,500,000 in this year, and £6,100,000 in a full year. That is the official estimate which we now put forward, but I do not mind saying that, personally, I believe that estimate is wrong. I believe it errs on the side of moderation and prudence, and I thought I detected some remarks in the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he, apparently, also thought that we were erring on the moderate side.
I have previously announced that I thought there would be a 10 per cent. contraction, but I think it is far more likely there will be an increase of 10 per cent. in the industry in the next 12 months. But I have framed my estimate on cautious lines. I have not the slightest doubt, and I have every reasonable hope—I am making no pledges or prophecies—that we will get at least the full yield of the duties as announced to Parliament when the Budget was introduced. All these concessions and changes have been made to meet points of view which have been put forward with great industry by Members of the House of Commons, by the trade, and by the interests concerned. They have been discussed with thoroughness and consideration and care in order that there should be the least possible friction, and in the end what do we lose? We lose no revenue at all. Is not that a great advantage? Is not that an indication of the discussion and careful examination that has taken place, and does not it justify and prove the truth of the somewhat doubtful proverb that I quoted a few minutes ago to the House? The right hon. Gentleman complained that I said that this was part of a scientific tariff. I never said that it was part of a scientific tariff; I said that this
complicated scale of duties was in itself a scientific tariff for silk. That is what I said; that is what I meant; that is what I was understood to mean by everyone who was not trying to find an excuse for making a complaint.

Mr. MACKINDER: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the quotation? I did not understand that it referred to silk only. We have to take what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I can hardly forbear to quote Dr. Johnson in reply. I have given hon. Gentlemen the reason, but I cannot be bound by the understanding they put upon it.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will you quote the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quoting the tenour of my remarks. We are not framing a scientific tariff for this country. We have no right to frame a scientific tariff for this country. It would be entirely contrary to the conditions and declarations on which the last Election was fought. But we are perfectly entitled to frame Revenue Duties for this country, and, if those Revenue Duties have in their scope 10, 15 or 20 different bearings on products which enter this country, we are perfectly justified in making those various elements of the duty relate to each other in a scientific manner—that is to say, broadly speaking, in inverse ratio to the amount of work left to be done in this country It has been revised so as gradually to disarm more and more all the opposition, until finally we have reached the point where we are to-day, when practically it may be said that the Silk Duties are going through virtually without any resisting hostility against them in any part of the House of Commons.
I must say frankly that the right hon. Gentleman added to his complaints a number of valuable admissions, and, as I have, endeavoured to answer his complaints, I am sure he will not complain if I also thank him for his admissions. He said that the rebates would cause friction, but they would work. He said that the taxes would retard but would not kill the industry. He said that we should get more revenue even this year; and the hon. Gentleman behind him, the Member for Hudder (Mr. J.
Hudson), went even further and said that the foreigner was going to pay. He admitted that, at any rate for the time being, the foreigner would pay. I believe it is a fact that the foreign importers of artificial silk to this country are extremely anxious to preserve their entry into this market. The silk industry has been expanded more in this country than in some countries on the Continent. They have not that expanding market in those countries that there is here, and consequently they are extremely anxious to preserve their entry into this market. While I am not in a position to announce any positive results at present, I certainly do look for a diminution in the price at which the foreign importer will send his goods here, and that diminution will inure to the Exchequer without addition to the cost to the consumer in that respect. Of course, I agree that probably these tendencies will be temporary and not permanent in character, but still, even if they are only temporary, we need not break our hearts about the fact that they manifest themselves.
As far as the production of artificial silk in this country is concerned, I am not going to prophesy, but I state it as my sincere belief, based on very considerable inquiry, that when the confusion caused by the inauguration of the duties and the inevitable friction have passed away, the price of artificial silk in this country will be no more than it is at present, in spite of the duty. That is my belief, and I am talking of what it will be possible to verify before the present year has drawn to a close. In that case, what will happen? Supposing that the cost of artificial silk is not increased in consequence of the Excise Duty in this country, all the argument about the meanness of taxing the finery of working girls will at any rate be robbed of its sting as regards any commodity into which artificial silk enters. And what will be the consequences as far as Lancashire and Yorkshire are concerned? They will be getting their artificial silk at no greater cost than at present, and, in addition to that, they will get the rebate—the drawback—which equates the Excise Duty in all cases, and gives, in addition, a considerable margin to allow for the friction and disturbance caused by the imposition of the tax.
Therefore, you are going to get, not only no increase in the cost of artificial silk goods to the consumer here, but a positive stimulation to the exporting energy of those great trades in Lancashire and Yorkshire which use their decorative fabrics to promote trade in Oriental markets. They are going to get, in my opinion, no impediment of any sort or kind.
After all, as I have said, the judgment will be given on the results. All of us have made our prophecies. All the pessimists have croaked their loudest, I have done my bit to keep the balance on the other side, and now we are at the point when the matter passes out of talk into action, and we must be judged, not by Debates, not by speeches', not by Divisions, however satisfactory, but by the hard results as they manifest themselves on the trade of the country and on the revenue of the Exchequer; and I go before that august tribunal with a clear conscience. (Interruption.) We hear about political verdicts, but I am not talking about the verdict of a constituency, or even of the House of Commons; I am saying that the judgment on these matters will now depend upon the actual results of the tax as measured in the revenue accounts of the future. As to Oldham, I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is very sore that there has been no division among the anti-Socialist forces. That is entirely in accordance with the doctrine I have always preached.
These duties must be judged by their results, and if, of course, the view of the right hon. Gentleman is correct, that only a very small revenue will be produced at great inconvenience and with the result of crippling the Lancashire and Yorkshire trade, I shall justly be condemned—I do not say condemned to death, but, at any rate, condemned in respect of this part of my political activities. But if, on the other hand, the duties are found to yield a considerable and substantial revenue, as much as was hoped for, or even more, if the export trade is not hampered by the drawback system, and if the price to the consumer in this country is not raised, although I quite admit that there may be some retardation in lowering it—I am not arguing unfairly—I think the Silk Duties will take their place as a permanent part of our revenue; and I am
sure that, once they have taken their place as a permanent part of our revenue, they will never be repealed by any Government, whether Conservative, Liberal or Labour, until every vestige of taxation on tea and sugar has been stricken from our tariff.

Mr. THOMAS SHAW: I am sure that everyone in the House admires the versatility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever they may think about the duties. I am surprised at his reference to Oldham, because the Government had a brilliant opportunity of finding, in an industrial constituency in Lancashire, exactly what they thought of these duties, and the Government ran away and did not run a candidate. There are many political Vicars of Bray as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and political Vicars of Bray are to be found in Oldham as well as in the House of Commons. I am one of those who think that the duties on artificial silk are perfectly fantastic, and who think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he drafted these duties, had scarcely appreciated what artificial silk was. Certainly, his arguments did not lead a practical man, knowing what the article is, to believe that he knew what artificial silk was. He assumed that it was a luxury, when everyone who has practical knowledge of the subject knew that it was not a luxury at all. It was evident, from the initial discussions on this question, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers were very much in the dark as to what artificial silk was and what it meant to various trades. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, since the introduction of these duties, has had many opportunities of finding out what those who really know the trade think of his proposals. There are in Lancashire two very large organisations, one of employers and one of employed, and both those organisations are unanimous against the duties that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Stockport might not fall into the category—

Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: Which one?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: As one of the committee of one of the organisations
to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, may I say that he is not correct in stating that they are unanimous? As a matter of fact, there was a very considerable discussion prior to the organisation in question coming up to this House to make the representations they did.

Mr. SHAW: There may have been discussions and there may have been differences of opinion. There was a difference of opinion on one occasion on a Lancashire jury, when they could not reach an agreement because one of them thought that the other 11 were fools; and the same type of discussion, I venture to say, took place in the Lancashire Employers' Association. The workers' representatives ought to have met the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday last, I believe, but they did not meet him for some reason or other.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the reason. In accordance with the pledge that I gave to an hon. Gentleman who sits on the second bench above the Gangway opposite, I telegraphed and wrote to the Operatives' Association saying that I would place Monday morning at their disposal, that being the only opportunity that there was. The reply I received was that in the altered circumstances they did not think it necessary to trouble me.

Mr. SHAW: Then, of course, the right hon. Gentleman must be absolved from all shadow of blame. But one thing is certain, that the Operatives' Association are unanimous against these taxes. What has taken place in Lancashire? Everyone connected with the Lancashire trade on its manufacturing side knows that Lancashire has had to change the type of goods it manufactures and to develop into finer and finer styles and fancier and fancier fabrics, for the word "fancy" is used in Lancashire to denote a sample of beautiful texture. This is continually going on. But in spite of every effort of designers, in spite of every effort of the finest technical body, I think, in the world—for I do not think anyone will deny to the Lancashire employers and managers the credit in technique, in intelligence, in skill and in work which really belongs to them, and I believe at the same time we have the finest body of workmen and women in the world in the cotton trade
—in spite of all our advantages of climate, of tradition and of skill we are the trade which has been the hardest hit of any in this country. We were hit in a double way. During the War, when every other industry was working overtime, we had to work short time because of the difficulty in getting our raw materials. At present our raw material is very high in cost, and we find that plain goods are very rapidly being made in countries to which we previously sold them. We have got inevitably to develop into finer and finer fabrics and more varied "weaves," to use a Lancashire term. We have had four years now of uninterrupted bad trade, and here was a development that was taking place and giving the greatest possible hope to the trade. It is only quite recently that wood pulp has been made to bear the strain of washing and become a really durable fabric, and the growth has been very encouraging. In almost every shirt of Lancashire make now there are a few threads of this artificial silk, but every practical man in the trade, without exception, says our greatest difficulty in selling our goods is the price, and any increase to the price, whether it gives a revenue to the country or not, is equivalent to a reduction of our capacity for developing the trade that we so badly need to develop.
I want to submit, too, that the tax; is wrong because it will hinder the development of a promising trade and one which has a right to expect from the country consideration, for whilst every industry during the War, employers and employed, were doing fairly well out of the War, this one industry was suffering all the time. It did not worry the Government. It carried its own burdens. It arranged its own schemes and went through the War without demanding anything from the Government. It gave all and it got nothing. It has a right to expect that it shall be treated well and reasonably and it has a right to expect that its voice shall be heard in the councils of the nation. There is no representative body in Lancashire, whether of employers or employed, whether their politics be Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or Labour, but believes that these duties are bad and will hinder the development of this growing trade. Then is the Chancellor sure that if the duty yields £900,000 he is
going to get the £900,000 for the Exchequer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: £7,000,000.

Mr. SHAW: The figure for the moment does not matter. I am speaking of whether the Chancellor thinks that if money is paid he is going to realise the sum that is paid. I suggest that his method of collecting is an extraordinarily complicated and technical one and that inevitably his tax collection will be frightfully expensive, because he will need technical experts to collect these taxes, and the technical experts will run away with a very considerable portion of his revenue. Take the taxes that are levied on finished woven goods. The manufacturer might have in one order, as it is termed, of 21 warps, 18 or 20 different patterns all containing different quantities of silk. Everyone of these will have to be calculated separately to get the real tax. In collection alone he will have officials like a swarm of locusts eating up the results that he expects for the Treasury. In essence these taxes are bad. Artificial silk is not a luxury. It is a trade that is growing and ought to be encouraged. It should not be discouraged. It is part of a trade which has been hit very badly during and since the War and which is entitled to consideration. It is a trade in which, broadly speaking, all employers and employed are agreed that a tax will hinder and not help, and beyond all a trade which has a right to demand from the Government, in virtue of the services it rendered during the War, in virtue of the fact that it carried its own burden during the War without coming to the Government, in virtue of the fact that it was exemplary all through the War in a national sense, that it shall again consider this question of artificial silk and consider whether it is not better to let it have a chance of developing instead of hindering it in the development that is now taking place.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I should like to associate myself in some measure with the remarks of the last speaker, particularly when he says the cotton trade requires most careful consideration by the Government. If I thought for a moment that this tax would have any deleterious effect upon that great trade I should not stand here in support of it. There have been a few new arguments raised to-day,
and I propose to address myself to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said this was a bad method of taxation. I disagree. It seems to me that it is spread over a large section of the population. It is not harsh or unequal. It is imposed upon articles which are bought at various periods, and is not like the Income Tax which is paid in lump sums. It is a very good method, particularly when we reflect that it will not affect in any respect the very poor. Great complaint has been made that the Schedule is designed on scientific lines. To my mind the fact that it is scientifically designed is in its favour, and is not a reason to oppose it. The original proposals were attacked and, under the criticism of the House and as the result of suggestions which have been made outside, they have been considerably modified. It is strange that the result of our labours should also be criticised, and it is peculiar to note that the alterations are stigmatised as all being in the direction of increased perfection while at the same time they are said to be the result of the trades' representations. I should be the last person to suggest that those great organisations are all so wedded to the principle of Protection that they should make alterations which are purely on these lines.
It has been put forward that in the future the revenue from these taxes will in the major proportion come not from Macclesfield and Leek but from the great textile trades of Lancashire and Yorkshire. But I think there is some misconception in that idea, because the amount of artificial silk used by Lancashire and Yorkshire is very small in comparison with that used in the Macclesfield and Leicester trades. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that side by side with this great increase in the use of artificial silk there has been a depression in the Lancashire and Yorkshire trades, and if these trades were so wedded to each other, you would find that an increase in the use of artificial silk would take place side by side with the increased demand for cotton and woollen goods, but such has not been the case. I feel that by these Regulations, particularly in respect to the through ticket scheme, our export trade in the textile trades is going to be thoroughly protected. In respect of the home trade the effect will be, to my mind,
particularly to stimulate the production of artificial silk in this country. We have seen during the last few days a prospectus for a new manufacturing concern to produce additional artificial silk. That is not the only new manufacturing process which is in process of construction, and I am certainly of the opinion that by the result of this tax the production of artificial silk will be stimulated. The gravamen of the objections to these taxes comes from political reasons very much more than from any considerations of industrial prosperity.

Captain BENN: The Chancellor's defence certainly dazzled the House of Commons and amused everyone, but I do not think, when examined, it will turn out to have very much texture or, in the jargon of our Debates, be very heavily loaded with real argument. His first point was that he had succeeded in wearing down all the opposition to these taxes. He said, "Look at the House of Commons. Here we are on the Report stage of the Clause which imposes these Artificial Silk Duties and there are not 40 members present," forgetful of the fact that, for the first time in the history of the House, as far as I am aware, a system of organised absenteeism has been introduced by his own party. [Interruption.] I may tell the hon. Member privately that our party is engaged in council at present. His second argument was that the judgment of the country had now been delivered in his favour, and when he was asked why, as the judgment was so universal in his favour, no one had claimed that judgment in the by-election at Oldham, he proceeded to explain that he did not mean the political judgment of the country. What he meant was the final judgment of history. I do not think that argument itself carries much weight, and indeed I was much surprised to see the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper) rise in his place, presumably to support the taxes. If he interrupts me to say he was going to oppose the taxes I shall be satisfied.

Mr. DUFF COOPER indicated dissent.

Captain BENN: It seems such a pity, when the opportunity comes to test the opinion of his own constituents who are so firmly supporting the Chancellor in this policy, that he prefers to come to explain the policy in the House of Commons rath lay it before the
country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on in his defence to state that he must get the revenue and that this is an excellent way of getting it. Although that is an argument which cannot be developed at length on the Finance Bill, many of us challenge the statement that he must get this revenue of £800,000,000. We believe that if he devoted his attention to reducing the expenditure, the necessity for this difficult, as he thinks, and odious, as we argue, form of taxation would entirely disappear. That point, however, I cannot develop except on the Second Reading Debate of the Finance Bill. We entirely challenge the statement that it is necessary to secure this £5,000,000, £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 for which he is asking.
The right hon. Gentleman's main defence has very largely changed since the Debate began. Everyone who heard his very interesting and powerful Budget speech will remember that he used a phrase about this duty, that it might be paid by anyone without injury either to health or morals. He regarded it as a luxury duty. We have heard nothing more of late about the luxury aspect of this Duty. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer judging from his utterances, and I have heard nearly every one of them, is really enamoured of this Duty as a luxury Duty, or a sumptuary tax. I do not think that is what is in his mind. What is in his mind is what appears to be in the mind of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) and that is, that it is the invention of an indirect form of tax by which we shall be able to levy our taxation on nearly all the consumers in the country. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks so often about sugar. He seems to see some similitude between this Silk Duty and the Sugar Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, drawing upon that inexhaustible source of military metaphor, which we so much enjoy and which is so powerfully handled by him, spoke of these two taxes marching along like two sentinels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Centipedes!"] I apologise. I thought he said centipedes, but I could not quite understand why he should introduce vermin into it. By comparing this Silk Duty to the Sugar Duty he provides the most powerful argu-
ment against the Silk Duty. It means that he thinks he has got hold of something which enters into the life or the wear or the use of very large numbers of people in this country and that he will be able to take his toll of them just as is done upon all those who consume sugar at every stage, imperceptibly but with ruinous results upon the poorer people.
If it be true, as it may very well be true, that this tax will have a large and increasing yield, then that is an increased reason for opposing it. It means that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing nearer to what is alleged to be his ideal, namely, the old equipose of direct and indirect taxation, taking less from the rich and more from the poor. He thinks that he has got something like the Sugar Duty. He is imposing upon the people a sort of poll tax, and we say that it is being done in inverse ratio to their capacity to pay. He thinks that he has found something, like sugar and alcohol, of universal consumption, and that by taxing it it will enable him to take more burdens off the Income Tax payer, the direct taxpayer, and to put more on the shoulders of the poorer indirect taxpayers.
I suggest that there never has been a Budget put through this House which has Been so changed in the course of Debate. I do not like to use the word slipshod; but every day has seen new Amendments by the Chancellor of the Exchequer shovelled on to the Paper. On Saturday we had one edition of the Finance Bill, then later we have had a sort of stop press edition of the Finance Bill to be substituted, with a large number of Amendments, for the preceding edition. There were slips in those Amendments. To-day, stealthily, without the usual stare, these slips, which may have been typographical slips, have been corrected on the Order Paper, and we have a new Amendment on the Order Paper to-night, although hon. Members have not been warned of it in the ordinary way by asterisks. Never has there been such slipshod procedure in proposing a new scheme of taxation upon the people of this country.
What has emerged from the Debates, apart from the points that have been put forward by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)? What has emerged is, that nobody knows what we
are taxing by this Silk Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we asked a question on the point at an earlier stage, told us to wait for the Finance Bill. When we got to the Finance Bill there was no time to raise the matter. When we came to the Committee stage he said: "scripsi quod scripsi." I have said that, and I say nothing more than that. Artificial silk is artificial silk. That is his definition. It is possible—of course, this is just a conjecture—that he may be brought into Court, that the Treasury may be brought into Court, because of the demand for a tax on some of these articles. He alleges that, if brought into Court, he can supply some chemical definition of what is meant by artificial silk, but he has not thought it worth while to put any definition of artificial silk in the Bill.
What is this duty going to cost in machinery? The right hon. Gentleman scoffs at the idea of any additional staff being necessary, any additional offices or any additional costs at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a great orator, and when an hon. Member on this side moved an Amendment to reduce the Customs duty from 1s. 6d., for the purpose of raising the issue, the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "What! Will you take from me this Customs duty. It was 1s. 6d., and you want to make it 4d. After all the machinery and the staff and the labour has been provided, you are going to rob me of the produce of the tax?" We pointed out that he said these was no machinery and no extra staff necessary. It was rather late at night, and I do not remember what the remainder of the Debate produced.
In introducing the duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was purely revenue. He was a Free Trader, but he has told us that progress is change, and the more change the nearer to perfection. When you have changes according to surroundings, it does not necessarily inspire confidence. He started by saying that it is not a protective tax; that there is no protective element in it. He stated that he had carefully provided a proportionate excise. If it was a proportionate excise in the Budget speech, what was it when it came to the Finance Bill? It clearly was a protective reduction of excise. The nice balance, of which we have heard so much and to which we have all attached so much importance, was
entirely destroyed, and the tax has become a protective tax. We have had one hon. Member this evening explaining that it is going to protect the manufacturer of these things, and that already prospectuses have been issued. Protectionists think that is a natural thing to happen, but it does not tally with the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no protection in the tax. Of course, it is protective, and is intended to be protective.
The right hon. Gentleman said in the Budget, "I do not say that I can make it work, but I will call business people together and convince them that it will work smoothly and promptly." I wonder if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary—who has, no doubt, attended the conferences—will say that he has convinced the business community that this tax will work smoothly and promptly. He knows that he dare not say any such thing. He may say that he thinks it will work smoothly and promptly, but as far as the merchants in London are concerned, they are certain that in nine days from to-day, or, some time next week, it will be impossible to bring this system of taxation into force without a great deal of hardship and loss and a very great deal of injustice to those concerned.
As to the drawbacks, the right hon. Gentleman has started an entirely new scheme. He has put down a new Schedule. I should think that it is almost unprecedented for a Chancellor of the Exchequer at the penultimate stage, at any rate on the last day for Amendment purposes, to put down an entirely new Schedule. It is optional, I admit. It may work for yarns and tissues, but I do not believe that it will ever work or can be made to work in respect to made-up articles. Those of us who are opposing these duties have had representations made to us from merchants who have pointed out to us how difficult, if not impossible, it will be to get drawbacks in certain cases. If you have a large tin-lined case with a mixed consignment of articles, you may have some articles of apparel, such as blouses, and there may be umbrellas and other things. The man who holds the consignment may be approached by a buyer, who may say, "I want you to pack all these things for shipment. I have received a telegram from Australia asking for these goods.
Pack them and ship them to-morrow, because the ship is leaving dock and there is space for this cargo." How can he, from that mixed consignment of articles, find out all the specific things on which he can claim a drawback? If he is not able to do that, how can he quote a price? It is this man, the shipper, who has to claim the drawback. He cannot push it off on the buyer at the other end. Therefore, hon. Members must admit that there will be very great difficulty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his pyrotechnic displays, has never attempted to answer the case that we have put with regard to the difficulty arising from the drawbacks.
By far the worst Protection is the Protection given in that part of the Customs Schedule which applies to made-up articles. It is true that there is an element of Protection in the duties charged on tissues and yarns, but when you get to the made-up articles, taxed at either 33⅓ per cent. or 10 per cent., or even only 2 per cent. on any foreign silk which is to be the new fiscal vehicle, you get a measure of Protection which may be very high Protection, and may be widespread over a very large number of articles imported into this country. It touches apparel and many articles of consumption at low prices at every point. We maintain that the points of substance which we have put forward, and which have been put forward by the traders of the country against this tax, have not been met. We say that this tax does not merely mean that you are dislocating trade, but that through the medium of this new tax you are doing a very great deal to damage the interests of the country, and to rob the meagre store of a large number of the poorer consumers in our land.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. COOPER: I trust that I may be excused if I endeavour briefly to reply to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) with regard to the action taken by the Conservative party in Oldham in the by-election which is now taking place. To my mind the taunts thrown out by the other side with regard to this election come with a particular
want of grace from the. hon. and gallant Member, since the action taken by the Conservative party in that constituency is the only hope which the Liberal party have of not seeing their candidate defeated.

Captain BENN: If the hon. Member asks my opinion, it is that the only hope of the Liberal party is to blot out every trace of the Coalition.

Mr. COOPER: I will not enter into an argument with the hon. and gallant Member, who is entitled to his own opinion, but I take it as a bad sign that he was not present at the council which has taken place. It has frequently been said by the other side that the Government were afraid to fight the by-election, but there would have been no by-election if it had not been for the action taken by the Government. It was because the Government were not afraid to appoint to a certain position a distinguished Member of this House and a political opponent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—simply because they considered him the best man for the position, that the election is taking place. They deliberately, in the middle of this violent altercation over the Silk Duties, created this vacancy in a Lancashire constituency, and you could hardly therefore say that the people who started the battle, who gave the signal for the fight, were afraid to take part in it. I hope that I shall not be indiscreet if I inform the House that the decision not to fight this by-election had nothing to do with the Government at all, and, so far as the Government attempted to exercise any influence on the decision taken by the local association, I think that it would have been in the opposite direction.
That decision was taken solely on their own initiative by the Conservatives of Oldham, and I am prepared to go into the reason for their taking it. It was a decision which had my approval and support. Eight months ago I was elected owing to a very large number of Liberal votes. There was no pact and no agreement between the two parties in that constituency, but there was a general understanding on each side that they had less to fear from one another than from the Socialist party, and on those grounds they each put up one candidate. To my mind, it would have been a singularly
graceless act on the part of the Conservatives if, after having caused a by-election to take place, they had then sought to capture the seat of the Liberal whom they had promoted, and it appears to me to be remarkable that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway opposite should be so loud in their condemnation of pacts and understandings, since it was only owing to a pact and a political understanding that they had their short and inglorious career on the Government Benches.

Mr. MACKINDER: It has been extremely interesting to hear the hon. Member's contribution to the Silk Duties' Debate. It appears that at last, after a long silence, Oldham has really spoken. I would have preferred the hon. Member who represents Oldham to tell us what the manufacturers think about the Silk Tax rather than to hear about the pact. Some of us were hoping that the official Conservative party would have gone to Oldham and told us what they thought about the Silk Tax. It was also very interesting to see that out of a party of 400 there were at least 10 present when the Debate was being initiated this afternoon. It is all very well for the Chancellor to say that the discussion has been worn threadbare, but it has not been worn threadbare on this side of the House, and very little assistance in the discussion on the Silk Tax has come from Members of the Conservative party in the course of the Debates.
One thing which has emerged out of the whole Debate is very useful. Artificial silk and real silk have received a really good advertisement. Anyone who looks at the morning papers will find that advantage is being taken of that advertisement. I suppose that the £300,000 capital will shortly be increased to about £500,000, or a little more, but as artificial silk has received a good advertisement, I honestly and sincerely hope, though I have criticised the tax, that it will not do the trade the injury which we expect it will do. Only last Saturday I was invited by a partner in a very prominent firm of export merchants in Bradford to meet them and discuss with them the possible effect of the Silk Duties on the export trade. It is needless to remind the House that neither of these gentlemen is a member of the Socialist party, nor, when I was discussing the Silk
Duties with them, for the moment was I a member of the Socialist party. I was a man interested in the trade of my native city and they were men interested in the trade of their native city, and we discussed the export scheme part of the Bradford trade from every possible angle. We discussed the through ticket for artificial silk, and we found no possible chance for a passage for that through ticket.
I challenge the Financial Secretary, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to tell us how far these negotiations have gone and how successful he has been in finding a method of dealing with the drawback system. I said in the last Debate that I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but we looked at it from every possible angle and neither these Bradford men, whose exports amount to many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, nor any single person whom I have met with in the business, has been able to think of any reasonable scheme or method whereby you can make it easier for the exporter to continue through the ordinary business channels and to be able to receive his drawback. We found very definitely that it will mean a cheap protection for the foreigner at the expense of the British consumer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That has been definitely proved, though Members of the party opposite say "No." I say definitely that, if we produce 100 pieces of cloth and 50 of them are exported for the foreign trade, those goods will be sold more cheaply abroad than they are being sold in this country, because of the drawback which they get on account of the export. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) who represents a textile town, and does know something about textiles will agree with that. It has been stated that Swiss firms are reducing the price of their articles of silk by 1s. a pound. The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked how long-will that last, but at all events it means that they get it all back. When the Swiss do send us this cheap artificial silk into this country will the Government call it dumping and will they want to impose a protective tariff upon this material? They say that the foreigner will pay, and they adduce as an argument the fact that the Swiss producers of artificial silk have reduced their
price by 1s. a lb. Then they will say, "That is a gross example of dumping, let us have a fresh tariff against this artificial silk."
This is a tax upon an industry. It is a hard tax on an industry on which many thousands of people have to depend for their living. I cannot understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary has arranged the gradations for the amount of duty. On the import of goods containing any proportion of silk over 20½ per cent. they will have to pay 33⅓ per cent. import duty. When they contain 19½ per cent. they only pay 10 per cent. import duty, so that for a difference of 1 per cent. there is a remission of 24⅓ per cent. William Pitt once said that to impose a tax of 5 per cent. on a free people is a dangerous experiment which may excite a revolt, but that there is a method by which we can tax the last rag from the back and the last bite from the mouth without the people knowing it. That is to impose a tax on a great many articles of daily use and necessity. Then people will complain of hard times, but they will not know that the hard times have been caused by taxing

the last rag from the back and the last bite from the mouth. The Chancellor has imposed taxation on sugar, the food of the children and the necessity of the working people. He imposes a tax on artificial silk, the girls' cheap finery. On real silk, the expensive material there will be a tax of 7½ per cent. On artificial silk, which is also weighted by tin—

Mr. REMER: No.

Mr. MACKINDER: I apologise if that is not so.

Mr. REMER: It is the real silk that is weighted.

Mr. MACKINDER: I accept that. But the food is taxed and the girls' cheap finery is also taxed as a result of this new method of taxation. I protest against it as representing the consumer and as one who has had to do with thousands of working people in the West Riding and I shall continue to protest against it and shall also vote against it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 152.

Division No. 202.]
AYES.
[6.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dawson, Sir Philip


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Campbell, E. T.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cautley, Sir Henry S
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Drewe, C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ellis, R. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Chapman, Sir S.
Elveden, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christie, J. A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Falls, Sir Charles F.


Beckett, sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Clayton, G. C.
Fermoy, Lord


Bennett, A. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fielden, E. B.


Berry, Sir George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fleming, D. P.


Bethell, A.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Forestier-Walker, L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cooper, A. Duff
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cope, Major William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gates, Percy


Briscoe, Richard George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gower, Sir Robert


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant, J. A.


Burman, J. B.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Gretton, Colonel John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macintyre, I.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
McLean, Major A.
Sandon, Lord


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacMillan, Captain H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hanbury, C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Savery, S. S.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Harland, A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Captain D.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hartington, Marquess of
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Skelton, A. N.


Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moles, Thomas
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Herbert, S. (York, N.R-,Scar. & Wh'by)
Murchison, C. K.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Neville, R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admral Murray Fraser


Homan, C. W. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Oakley, T.
Templeton, W. P.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tinne, J. A.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perring, William George
Titchtield, Major the Marquess of


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Huntingfield, Lord
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hurd, Percy A.
Philipson, Mabel
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pielou, D. P.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Pilcher, G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jacob, A. E.
Preston, William
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Price, Major C. W. M.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Jephcott, A. R.
Raine, W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford Lichfield)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Knox, Sir Alfred
Remer, J. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lamb, J. Q.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Womersley, W. J.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R. Ripon)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Loder, J. de V.
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lougher, L.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon Sir L.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and




Captain Douglas Hacking.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gillett, George M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Gosling, Harry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Connolly, M.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Ammon, Charles George
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenall, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baker, Walter
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Day, Colonel Harry
Groves, T.


Barr, J.
Dennison, R.
Grundy, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dunnico, H.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Briant, Frank
England, Colonel A.
Hardie, George D.


Briggs, J. Harold
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Harris, Percy A.


Broad, F. A.
Fenby, T. D.
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Bromfield, William
Forrest, W.
Hayes, John Henry


Charleton, H. C.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Clowes, S.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Cluse, W. S.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Hirst, G. H.




Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, H.
Stamford, T. W.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Sutton, J. E.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Oliver, George Harold
Taylor, R. A.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Owen, Major G.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, R. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Varley, Frank B.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kennedy, T.
Riley, Ben
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Kenyon, Barnet
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lansbury, George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lawson, John James
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lindley, F. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Livingstone, A. M
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Welsh, J. C.


Lowth, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Lunn, William
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Whiteley, W.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mackinder, W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacLaren, Andrew
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Windsor, Walter


March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wright, W.


Maxton, James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morris, R. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Warne.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

CLAUSE 5.—(Excise, Duties on artificial silk.)

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words
'(other than yarn produced by spinning from artificial silk waste "on" which duty has been paid under this Act).'
This is one of a series of Amendments designed to avoid the payment of duty twice over when the yarn is spun from artificial silk waste on which duty has already been paid. It is merely a drafting Amendment. It was never the intention that duty should be paid twice, but on the wording of the Clause as it stands it might be held that those who spun from artificial silk waste were liable to double duty.

Captain BENN: This is worthy of a word of comment. At the last moment of the last hour the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suddenly discovered that he is imposing a double Excise duty upon the manufacture of artificial silk. This Amendment is not a concession to the trade. The well-balanced scheme that has been before us for so long is suddenly found to include a double Excise duty. The Chancellor proposes to remit the double Excise duty by amendment of this Clause. In paragraph 5 of Part III of the Second Schedule he remits the double Customs duty. It would be more con-
venient to introduce the Amendment now before us in paragraph 5 of Part III of the Second Schedule than to introduce the Amendment in the present Clause.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is not a question of drawbacks, but of not paying the duty a second time.

Captain BENN: I observe that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not read paragraph 5 of Part III of the Second Schedule. The paragraph does not deal with the question of drawbacks, but of double duty. If the scheme is to be comprehensible to the people who work it, it would be far better to avoid double duty by a provision in paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule than to insert the provision in this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 40, after the word "yarn," insert the words "or waste."

In page 3, line 44, after the word "yarn," insert the words "or waste."

In page 4, line 5, after the word "yarn," insert the words "or waste."—[Mr. Guinness.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Customs duty on lace.)

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause deals with the proposed duty of 33⅓ per cent. on lace imported
into this country. On the last occasion we had the advantage of considerable Debate upon this topic. Undoubtedly the proposal of the Bill was made because of the depressed condition of the lace industry in Nottingham and in one or two other centres. This is one of the first proposals under the new Memorandum of the Safeguarding of Industries Committee's Report which superseded the terms of the old Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921. In the previous Debate I said that we recognised that there were undoubted difficulties in the lace industry of Great Britain at the present time. I want to make clear on this occasion also that if we believed for a moment that the remedy which is now proposed was one which was strictly in the interests of this or any other industry and would revive employment, undoubtedly we should be amongst the first to support it. But we are compelled by every analysis of this proposal to object to the remedy which the Government have proposed. It is not denied that the lace trade has been passing through a time of depression; but I invite any hon. Member to study the two Reports of the Committee set up originally under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act, and later to ascertain whether there was any reason for a change in the Committee's opinion, in the light of present conditions. I invite hon. Members to study the reports and to deny that the difficulties of the lace industry are not to-day very largely due to causes which this Clause by no stretch of the imagination will cure.
It is plain that the lace industry is suffering from a widespread change in fashion, that in point of fact the demand for this commodity has largely decreased in this country and in other lands. Moreover, it seems to me unlikely that in the near future that demand will revive. In the next place lace is being sent to Great Britain under advantageous conditions of export from other countries, because of the inferior labour conditions, and in the second place because of the exchange advantage which these foreign countries enjoy. Taking first the question of depression, no hon. Member, however strong a Protectionist, can argue for a single moment that a mere change in fashion should be the groundwork or the reason for a new departure in our fiscal system. I have heard many arguments
put forward on behalf of Protection in my time and some of the strangest of them have been put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer under his present so-called Free Trade auspices, but I never heard anybody suggest that a change of fashion in the demand for a commodity was to be a reason for a tariff and for a departure from our recognised fiscal system. Yet, in fact, this is the condition of affairs in which we find ourselves to-night, because both of these Reports emphasise the fact that a very great change has taken place in the fashion in this commodity, and that it is largely for that reason that the demand has fallen off. That, of course, is no basis at all.
Under the looser provisions of this new Memorandum—some people regard them as stricter provisions, but they are much looser in some ways—two conditions have to be satisfied. One of these is that you must retain within this country a substantial proportion of this commodity which you are importing from abroad and, secondly, it must be shown that the retention for home consumption is detrimental in competition with what you are producing within Great Britain. It is a, very remarkable fact that on these two central conditions, which I do not imagine the President of the Board of Trade disputes, this proposal absolutely fails. The Committee itself on the first point makes it plain that, taking three years round about 1914 and three very recent years, the amount retained in the first three years was about £1,600,000 worth of this commodity in Great Britain and in the later three years only about £749,000 worth, so that, plainly, on the retention of the commodity within Great Britain, which is an important element in the new conditions laid down, this proposal absolutely fails. It must be shown in the next place that the retention of the commodity means an acute and difficult com-petition with the article itself as produced in Great Britain, but the Committee themselves undermined that argument in every way, because they say, in effect, that you have a restricted market all round for lace and that what has taken place is that within this restricted market you have the foreign commodity, but nevertheless a foreign commodity largely reduced in its aggregate entry into Great Britain.
The two conditions entirely disappear, and, as I tried to show when we argued this matter on a former occasion, with the disappearance of these two fundamental conditions of the test laid down by the White Paper, disappear also three or four succeeding tests of importance that had to be satisfied according to the Prime Minister's statement in this House before any industry got the benefit of this safeguarding legislation. These things have never seriously been met in Debate, and hon. Members have been compelled to fall back upon the state of unemployment in this industry which we all deplore. But I strongly dispute that it can be assisted by a tariff at the present time. What are the other two points, and the only other two which I will take time to describe in this Debate. Hon. Members say that these goods are coming to this country and enjoying the advantage of the cheaper labour by means of which they are produced at Calais and other centres abroad, and, secondly, that they come to this country enjoying the export advantage of a depreciated exchange. Under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act discussed in the memorable days of the Coalition in 1921, you had of course very difficult conditions of that kind, particularly in regard to the exchanges, but even at that time hon. Members on the other side of the House hardly thought this was a method of dealing with the exchange disease, and they did not recommend it as a permanent policy for Great Britain. The argument has very largely changed, because to-day we find ourselves in a new state of affairs.
As regards conditions of labour, no hon. Member, whatever his fiscal faith may be, can say that you are going to improve conditions of labour in any country in the world by restricting the market in which the commodities produced by that labour are sold, yet that is very definitely the policy and the economic doctrine to which the President of the Board of Trade and his lieutenant tie themselves to-night. Of course, I am not surprised, because I have had many encounters in this House with the President of the Board of Trade on Protectionist issues, and I know he is an out-and-out Protectionist. He, at all events does not conceal the fact that he welcomes this proposal because it is one step along that road and on the principle
that, if you cannot get a general comprehensive tariff, at all events, you should take everything you can get under the Safeguarding of Industries machinery. That is an understandable attitude but, economically, in this matter it is an impossible and erroneous attitude. I have never heard the President of the Board of Trade suggest that you are going to improve conditions abroad by excluding French or any other lace from Great Britain any more than you are going to improve the conditions of the people in Nottingham, because in the last result the available market for anything depends upon the freedom you can maintain in international trade intercourse and by this device you are definitely restricting that freedom to-day.
As regards depreciated exchanges, I have never been able to get the President of the Board of Trade and the Government to stand up to this proposition, and I make another and almost fervent appeal to them now to answer this question. Are you going to help to remedy the European exchange disease—the depreciated French exchange which is giving them this export advantage—by seeking to exclude this commodity from Great Britain? Remember, the commodity must be excluded if there is to be any real benefit to Nottingham. Of course, the consumers here will pay the extra price, with the tariff included, but unless you largely exclude the foreign commodity, you will not protect the people of Nottingham, or you will only protect them to a very limited extent. How does the President of the Board of Trade suggest that that can help the exchange situation? Remember that in both these reports of the committee the exchange problem is put forward as a substantial part of the case. The President of the Board of Trade knows that this is no remedy at all for the exchange disease. If he puts forward that proposition, he is obliged to run counter to what was said by a distinguished body like the Cunliffe Committee, which did not include one Socialist, and therefore presented a perfectly orthodox and, I should think, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, reliable Report. But if the right hon. Gentleman puts forward the proposition to which I refer, he is required to run counter to that Report and
to throw over a great number of his friends in very high quarters who have first-hand knowledge of these economic problems.
So it comes about that he never stands up to that issue at all, but falls back upon unemployment in the industry, upon Protection as a cure, and upon the advantage of developing this safeguarding machinery. There are other remedies which can be found for the difficulties of a trade of this kind. No one interested in Nottingham to-day will deny that very largely because of the change in fashion and a certain failure to adopt devices and provide a variety, which has been provided in other centres, this trade has to some extent lost heart. I regret that as much as any other hon. Member, and I sympathise with the Nottingham people, but the point I am making is that this is no cure for their disease, because you have only to extend this from one industry to another and you are definitely restricting the great international trade field of Great Britain. Your last state will be worse than your first. You will have lost your markets and you will have done nothing to cure unemployment; you will only have aggravated economic disease, and for these reasons I beg to submit this Amendment.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I think almost everything which can be said on one side or the other has been said in the many Debates which we have had on the proposal, but it is like the fertility and ingenuity of my right hon. Friend to introduce two elements in the discussion which I do not think have been discussed before, or which I have missed if they have been discussed. His first argument was an argument which I have heard before, namely, that you could not do any good to this industry because it is suffering from a change in fashion. To that I must make the answer which I have made to that argument before—that because you have an industry which is limited both by conditions of fashion and by unfair competition, that does not seem to me to be less but rather more reason for including it in the provisions of a safeguarding proposal if it is entitled to that inclusion at all. Really the right hon. Gentleman's argument is the equivalent of saying, "If it has to meet one
difficulty, help it; if it has to meet a combination of difficulties, do not give it any help." I would add with complete sincerity that if you want to give heart to this industry the best way to do so is to give it a chance of doing well in whatever trade is being done. There is nothing which gives one quite so much heart in business as doing more business. No amount of sympathy or expert advice is quite as good a stimulus as doing more business.
Then my right hon. Friend asked was I going to improve conditions in Calais by this proposal. Quite frankly I was not concerned to improve conditions in Calais; I was concerned to improve conditions in Nottingham. My right hon. Friend went on to what was a. novel and interesting point. He said this was a bad proposal because it was designed to remedy the exchange situation in Europe, and that you could not remedy the exchange situation by putting a duty upon an article which comes from a country where there is a depreciated exchange. My answer to that is twofold. In the first place, the object of this proposal is not to put the exchanges right on the Continent, but to protect us from the consequences which we are suffering because the people of the Continent do not put their exchanges right. May I put the converse case to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he would agrees— and he at any rate is entirely pure in finance—that the only way in which you can get an exchange stabilised is to balance your budget and balance your trade. Therefore, it is not within the competence of any outside country to get the exchange of another country right, unless indeed it is in a position to take complete control of its finances, both national and governmental.
May I put the converse of his proposition to the right hon. Gentleman? I do not quite see how he got the exchanges in Europe right by refraining from putting on duties. The exchanges really did not get any better because he did not, because you were without the McKenna Duties or a Lace Duty, and really that argument does not meet the point at all. I have not the figures by me—and the right hon. Gentleman has an even better general acquaintance of the figures of export and import than I have—but I think I am
right in saying that the fact in French trade to-day is that French exports have enormously increased since the conclusion of the War, and if you take the trade between France and this country, you will find that the French exports have not only greatly increased in volume, but that they have greatly increased in ratio to our exports to France. Therefore, any argument based on the suggestion that the limitation of a particular class of imports coming from France is likely to prejudice the French exchange, when to-day, the balance of trade in that direction is enormously in favour of France, is not a good argument.
I find it very difficult to meet the desire of the party opposite. An hour or two ago they were saying they wished to challenge us to do something for unemployment, yet when we do one thing which we sincerely believe will be of positive value to employment in a particular place where unemployment at present is very serious indeed, then we are challenged because we are doing something to give employment. Hon. Members really cannot have it both ways, and quite sincerely we shall proceed with this proposal, which, I am sure, will he vindicated again by this House as a very sincere attempt to deal with a very hard case and a very deserving industry.

Captain BENN: I have not any doubt the proposal will be vindicated by the House, because the right hon. Gentleman knows very well he has a large army of servile followers who are all waiting under the excellent management of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Whip (Commander Eyres Monsell) to pour into the lobbies, whether or not they have heard the arguments or whether or not they know what the Clause is, so there is no doubt the proposal will be what the right hon. Gentleman calls vindicated. Whether it will be vindicated when weighed in the balance of justice and argument is another matter, on which each must form his own. opinion. Before coming to the general question, I would like to ask if I understand that goods that have already been ordered will all be subject to tax if they arrive after the 1st July, or will they not be subject to tax if the contract for them was placed before the Budget was introduced? I
have been asked the question, because there is a good deal of Lancashire yarn sent abroad to be made into Swiss lace, and the import of that will be hampered, presumably, to some extent, and people will be injured if the trade is stopped, although it may have begun long before the Budget was thought of. That is a trade point on which I should be glad to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
In regard to the fashion argument, the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury says: "The trouble in the lace trade is that people do not like lace," and the President of the Board of Trade says: "Lace is going out of fashion, and people will not buy it, so we will tax them till they do buy it." How you will make lace curtains more popular by raising their price is, I confess, a proposition that I do not understand. The right hon. Gentleman does admit, what everybody opposite, ever since the late and lamented Coalition started the idea that you can correct exchanges by import duties, denies, namely, that you cannot possibly correct an exchange by an import duty. He says: "We are to protect ourselves against cheap imports," but he does not explain whether the duty is going to have any effect of making the exchange worse and constantly increasing this danger of dumped imports, until, presumably, at the end we shall have to adopt prohibition to protect ourselves from it. Another point he does not deal with is this: He does not explain how it comes about that France can make such enormous exports of cheap dumped goods. He says it is due to the depreciation of the franc, but he overlooks the fact that the goods in question are all made from cotton, every bit of which has to be imported into France, so that what France gains on her export swings she loses on her import roundabouts. Certainly, when the product is not a home product, the exchange tells as much against as in favour of the country in question.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, whose contributions to our Debates are always so welcome—because, if I may say so, he has an engaging frankness combined with an official knowledge which is rare, and there is a certain reluctance on the part of others to give us the information which he places at the disposal of the House— if he can tell us how exactly we stand
about the White Paper, because he will remember that we were under the impression, on this side, that the Government had voluntarily bound themselves by the terms of the White Paper. I am speaking of what is called the Safeguarding Paper. We understood that the Prime Minister had said that he would not grant any of these duties unless the industry conformed to the terms of the White Paper. Presumably, we were wrong, because the recommendation of the Committee in this case was that the industry had not conformed to the terms of the White Paper, and it would be helpful to us if the Parliamentary Secretary could make it clear, officially, whether or not the White Paper has any further binding force, or whether the Government are now in a position to apply this sovereign remedy without regard to the terms of this tiresome and fettering document.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in an impassioned peroration to his answer to the ex-Financial Secretary, said: "Here are people unemployed, and will you prevent us using a weapon that will protect them against the spectre of unemployment?" Does he really think he is going to create employment by this tariff? It would be very helpful if one could know whether he thinks this duty will really create employment, because, if he does, what are we to think of a Government which, with the unemployed mounting in numbers every week by tens of thousands, knows the remedy—in this case, it is about to apply it for the benefit of the lace industry in Nottingham— is confident of the remedy, and yet will not apply it on a more general scale? We shall have our answer, of course. We do not believe this will create employment. We believe that, if you put men to work in this trade, you will be robbing other trades engaged in export. But if the right hon. Gentleman is sincere when he says that this is a means of creating employment, I say it is the bounden duty of the Government, and especially his duty, as head of the important Department dealing with trade, to give it a more general application, so that at least we may test the value of the theories that are put before the country by the party opposite.

Major COLFOX: Last week I was compelled to give a silent vote on this subject, through my inability to catch the eye of the Chairman of the Committee, and, therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House to allow me to give my own point of view on this matter. At the time of the last election, and of the election before that, I told my constituents that I did not believe that Protection could be shown to be likely to improve the prosperity of the industry of this country, but I said also that, if any industry could, after searching examination, make out a case and prove that a measure of Protection afforded to it would give it more advantage than the disadvantages which might accrue to other industries, then I would be prepared to support Protection for that one industry. At the time of the last election, the Government told the country that they would be prepared to advocate Protection for a given industry after it had passed through the meshes of a very careful net of procedure, which they foreshadowed, and in order to carry out this scheme a Committee was set up to go into all the facts of the industry. Having given the pledges which I did, I consider myself bound by the Report of that Committee. I say "by the Report," because I do not believe that the findings at the end of that Report represent the true facts as sketched by the Report, and, therefore, though I feel myself bound by the Report of the Committee, I do not feel myself bound by the concluding paragraphs. When that Committee was set up, it was asked eight questions. The first was whether the industry was an industry of substantial importance, and the Committee found in the affirmative. The second was:
Whether foreign goods of the class or description to which the application relates are being imported into and retained for consumption in the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities?
On that subject, the Committee found, after hearing evidence, and all the facts and figures having been produced, that:
It is clear that imports of cotton lace are not being retained for consumption in the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities.
In other words, the industry failed to fulfil the second condition. The third, fourth, and fifth conditions did not apply, since they referred only to the abnormal
imports retained in this country, and, therefore, these questions had perforce to be answered by the Committee in the negative. The sixth question was:
Whether the applicant industry is being carried on in the United Kingdom with reasonable efficiency and economy?
The answer to that was that it was. The seventh question was:
Whether the imposition of a duty on goods of the class or description in question would exert a seriously adverse effect on employment in any other industry?
The answer was that it would only affect the making-up trade, and the Committee did not think the effect on that trade would be serious. Then we come to the real pith of the whole Report, which is contained in the eighth question and the answer to it. The eighth question was:
Whether, having regard to the above conditions"—
I stress that phrase—
the applicant industry has, in the opinion of the Committee, established a claim to a duty?
"Having regard to the above conditions" means the first seven questions asked, and the answer is:
The applicants have not been able to answer question (2) in the affirmative, and if an affirmative answer to this question is to be considered a condition precedent to the establishment of a claim to a duty, we con-eider that the applicants have failed to bring their case within the strict terms of the White Paper.
7.0 P.M.
But the eighth question says, "Whether having regard to the above conditions." Therefore really when this Committee was set up it was considered that an affirmative answer was essential to all those eight questions. The Committee having reported that in their view, after having carefully sifted the matter, the applicant industry had failed in five out of the eight conditions, yet recommended that a protective duty should be imposed. It has been claimed, both here this afternoon and in many places outside, that a protective duty such as this one would materially relieve the unemployment situation. Yet we find that there is not any abnormal quantity of this commodity being imported into this country, and therefore, even if all the imports at present arriving in this country were to be prohibited altogether, there could be only a small increase in the employment available.
But this proposal is not for total prohibition. It is only for a substantial measure of protection. Therefore, obviously even that small increase in the available amount of employment will be very largely reduced, and in my mind is likely to disappear altogether. The Committee gives the real reason for the deplorable state of this particular industry. Everybody knows that there is a very large amount of unemployment in this industry and everybody deplores it. The Committee gives us the reason for it. It says there has been serious contraction in the demand for lace embroidery throughout the world, and that serious contraction in demand cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be altered by the imposition of an import duty, since the high rate of unemployment is due to this lack of demand. Obviously—at any rate it is obvious to me—the imposition of a protective duty cannot possibly increase the amount of employment available in that industry, because it cannot possibly increase the demand for the commodity produced by that industry. Therefore, since I felt myself bound to abide by the Report of this Committee which has carefully investigated all the facts of the case, I voted last week against the proposal, and I intend to do so again.

Mr. SPENCER: There is a very interesting passage in the New Testament in which some of the brilliant theologians of the day are trying to confound a man who has been brought under the beneficent influence of Jesus Christ, and who cannot answer. He is not qualified to answer, but he states one thing—
One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.
The hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox), who has just spoken, may be able to put up some very telling arguments based upon the report and the White Paper, but if he goes into the streets of Nottingham and round the quarter where men live who work in the lace industry, they will not be able to answer him, but there is one thing they will be able to tell him. "Can you put us in?" That is really the test with regard to this question, and to take up a non-possumus attitude with regard to this question when you have an industry, rapidly declining and passing away as
you have in Nottingham is not a credit to any party.
I would like to call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) to a passage that I read to-day in Benjamin Kidd's "Social Evolution," because in my opinion it fits the position of the Liberal party. I did not leave Liberalism and join the Labour party to have impressed upon me more firmly doctrinnaire Radicalism, and I would like to say that to my friends on the Front Bench. In this particular quotation you have this:
Our social phenomena seem to be continually moving beyond theories into unknown territory, and we see the economists following after as best they can and with some lose of self-respect from the onlookers, slowly and painfully adjusting the old arguments and conclusions to the new phenomena.
I am not getting any votes in my constituency. I do not think I have a single vote to catch, I do not live in my constituency, I live in Nottingham and see the poverty and distress, and that is the thing that is moving me. I might not be moved by a case which came from Middlesbrough of which I knew nothing, but I am moved by this case. When my hon. and gallant Friend opposite quotes that Report about imports into this country he wants to get down to the real facts. He wants to read the Report through. The Report says this. In 1907 you may take the internal trade in this country or the international trade of the world, if you like, at 100; in 1913 at 53; in 1924 at 25. Let us have a look at the figures and then ask ourselves whether there are, after all, any abnormal imports into this country. In 1913 the total imports of lace and embroidery, cotton and silk was £5,900,000. In 1924 it was £4,700,000. The 53 represents in imports 100. The £4,700,000 represents 79. As against the volume of trade represented, 153 only represents 47 to-day. So you actually get this fact, that, while you have only 79 coming in as against 100 in 1913, you now have only 47.3 as against 100 in that time. Therefore competition is more severe. Though there is less coming in there is less trade to take it. It is because of that fact that the Nottingham people are feeling it most intensely. If this can do anything whatever to rehabilitate trade in Nottingham, a good thing will be done.
I went home with a commercial traveller the other day, and he told me an interesting thing I did not know. We all ought to have known it. He said that already trade was beginning to pick up, not because of the psychological effect upon the manufacturer, but because things had gone a little dearer. There is all this difference between a man and a woman. When a man gets a bargain he runs to his next door neighbour and says, "I got this pair of shoes for 6s." But if it is a woman and she gets it for 6s., it is 12s. She will not buy cheap goods. There is all the difference in the world between a man and a woman. My friend says if lace goes up a bit we will not get people buying it. If the commercial traveller says what is true, that women turn their attention to dearer things instead of cheaper things, there is a possibility of trade nourishing because of that fact. Whether that be true or not, I will make this statement, and no man can deny, that there is a psychological difference between men and women when buying goods for their own wear. I only want to say that I have been moved in this instance to give this vote because of the extreme poverty which surrounds my own home. There are men who have been unemployed for three years, and I want to say it is not a bit of use myself or any man who is better capable of putting the case either for Free Trade or Protection going down to Nottingham and telling the men there that they are going to gain a £1 on the swings and lose 20s. on the roundabouts. That is not effective argument. What they want in that city is work. I am not going to prophesy what effect it will have on the trade, but I have one wish, and that is that as far as that trade is concerned, it may be the turning point, and that instead of declining, the trade may go on to prosperity and engage a larger number of men than it has hitherto done.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We all appreciate the manner in which the last speaker has spoken all through the Debate, and his anxiety for the people with whom he is acquainted. There are many of us who feel we cannot accept the point of view which he has earnestly and conscientiously put to the House. First of all, he thinks some of us are inclined wholly to entirely old methods. But surely those of us who hold different economic views would not admit for a
moment that the application of a tariff is the application of a new arrangement. As a matter of fact, there is probably no older method in economic history than the application of a tariff. I think it goes as far back as Aristotle. Aristotle said that to obtain for oneself a monopoly was, a general principle of finance and that is very largely the dynamic of those who seek to restrict markets by tariffs; to obtain for themselves a monopoly of their own. We cannot admit for a moment that this is applying a new plan to new conditions. With regard to the other interesting point which he made, that a commercial traveller thinks that a woman will buy more lace if the price of lace is higher, it is not my experience of women, who are such efficient domestic Chancellors of the Exchequer. It may be true that women like "dear" things, but I am not so sure that they like expensive things. There is rather a difference between the two.
In regard to the reply to my right hon. Friend by the President of the Board of Trade to-night, I want to say that the President altogether omitted to deal with a point which is one of substance and importance to those of us who are concerned with the ancillary trades, and with the consumer. I have some experience and knowledge of the way in which lace is used in the making-up industry. In the course of the evidence taken on the first occasion by the Committee dealing with lace, I had the honour myself to submit evidence as to what the effect of the duty would be upon the making-up trades. There is not the slightest doubt that, even though the Committee reported, as quoted by the right hon. Member, that the effect will not be very great, it will have a detrimental effect upon the making-up trades in this country.
It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that after all the only way to give help to this industry was by this protective tariff. But if by the tariff you are going to raise the price—and I have not heard a single supporter of this or any similar duty argue that it will not raise the price of the article, especially by such a heavy rate of duty as 33⅓ per cent.—is it not perfectly obvious that you are going to restrict the market,
and certainly not going to help the industry? In regard to the change of fashion, apart from the change of habit, let me say that we, in our experience of the trade, have again and again found, where we have desired to stimulate the demand for articles made up with lace in spite of the change in fashion, a lack of initiative on the part of the British producer as compared with the foreign producer of lace. Again and again when we would have desired to obtain the British article, we have been unable to get a ready sale for it, because it could not compete in taste and in new ideas with goods coming from foreign markets.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said that we were never going by protective tariffs of this sort to raise in any degree the conditions of the workers abroad, such as, for example, in Calais. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not concerned with the conditions of the industry of Calais; he is concerned with the conditions at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but let me put the Labour point of view. Unless you get something like solidarity of labour conditions throughout other countries you are never going to be able to attain any standard, or maintain the position which we as the working-class party in this country may win for ourselves by organisation and agitation over a period of years. So as to the point put by many of my hon. Friends on this side, and with sincerity, that they come to this fiscal question with open minds, willing to have new light upon new problems, and to decide for themselves in regard to a particular industry what their course shall be, let me put this: The admission is made to-night by the Protectionist President of the Board of Trade that he is not concerned for one moment with the conditions of the workers abroad, however much those conditions abroad may seriously react upon the conditions and standard of life in this country.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Why did not the Government of the hon. Gentleman ratify the Eight Hours Convention?

Mr. ALEXANDER: If my noble Friend's colleagues had not been so anxious to kill that Government, we would have got to our goal much more
rapidly than appears likely in recent discussions at Geneva. I want to impress the point upon all my hon. Friends who are concerned, as I am, with the maintenance of a general standard of life among our workers and to keep up the standard of life abroad. On that point, I think the answer of the President of the Board of Trade failed altogether.
There are other points, but, in conclusion, I will confine myself to one, and that is, I think, a very important point. Hon. Friends and myself are engaged in pressing upon the Government at the present time the problem of unemployment. There are some of us who hold the view that the very rapid increase of unemployment during the last few weeks is likely to develop, because there has been far too rapid a return to a policy concerned with this Finance Bill or in connection with it—the return to the gold standard—and that, unless other conditions are re-arranged, the effect of that policy will be that unemployment will still further increase. What had the President of the Board of Trade to say to this serious question? He said that the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh about the exchanges did not hold water, or words to that effect. He said the exchanges depended upon the other countries concerned balancing their budgets, and balancing their trade. There has not been any more authoritative pronouncement in recent years upon the general question of the exchanges and on the return to the gold standard than the report of the Cunliffe Committee. The report of the Brussels Financial Conference of 1920 was held to confirm the Cunliffe Report, which said that it was necessary to secure the withdrawal of all artificial economic barriers preventing

the unrestricted interchange of commodities between nations.

Yet here is the Government which has intensified the problem of unemployment by a hasty return to the gold standard, at the same time, instead of following that policy to give a free exchange of goods as a corollary to the return of the gold standard, setting up protective tariffs and additional barriers to the exchange of goods between the countries of the world. This is a very wrong thing in the view of those experts. In the light of all these factors we think the President of the Board of Trade has failed to give an answer to those points put by my right hon. Friend to-night, and for that reason we shall press the Amendment.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) has made an amusing speech, in which he tells us that he is not moved by theory but by what he sees. Perhaps he remembers the story of the signalman or the engine driver who, when his little girl was on the line, had to choose between saving the life of his child and risking the lives of perhaps 100 passengers in the train, or watch over the safety of the passengers and chance the child being safe. I want to put one simple, straightforward question to the President of the Board of Trade, or to the right hon. Gentleman who has been described from these benches as his frank and charming assistant, and my question is this: Does this Safeguarding White Paper stand or does it not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 146.

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[7.26 p.m


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Albery, Irving James
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bennett, A. J.
Briggs, J. Harold


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bentinck, Lord Hanry Cavendish-
Briscoe, Richard George


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Berry, Sir George
Brittain, Sir Harry


Astor, Viscountess
Bethell, A.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Buckingham, Sir H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Burman, J. B.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Philipson, Mabel


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harland, A.
Pielou, D. P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilcher, G.


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cassels, J. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hawke, John Anthony
Raine, W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Remer, J. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rentoul, G. S.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Homan, C. W. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandon, Lord


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Skelton, A. N.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Daizlel, Sir Davison
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Storry Deans, R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Elveden, Viscount.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchel- (Croydon, S.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tinne, J. A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Merriman, F. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Fermoy, Lord
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fleming, D. P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Moles, Thomas
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fraser, Captain lan
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Frece, Sir Walter de
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gates, Percy
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grant, J. A.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gretton, Colonel John
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perring, William George
Major Hennessy and Captain Mar-


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
gesson.


Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Barnes. A
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


England, Colonel A.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.



Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest. J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Warne.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ponsonby, Arthur

CLAUSE 11.—(Provision as to re-importation of certain goods charged with duty by Act 42. & 43 Vict., c. 21.)

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out the word "or."
The object of this Amendment and of the succeeding one on the paper—in page 8, line 37, after the word "four," to insert the words "or Section six"—is to apply the provisions of Clause 11 of the Finance Bill to re-imported lace. The Act mentioned at the beginning of Clause 11 was a re-enactment of the old-standing differentiation between the treatment of British re-imports, which were allowed to come in duty free up to five years from their export, and foreign re-imports, which were always liable to duty, no matter when they had been exported. Clause 11 substitutes for that old
arrangement a concession which was made first in 1915, in connection with the McKenna Duties, under which British goods which were re-imported were exempt from a second payment of duty, however long after exportation the re-importation might be. Foreign goods were given the concession that they were freed from duty if they had either been brought into this country originally before any duty was in force, or, if they had been brought in during the operation of duties, if they had not got any rebate on exportation. I think the House will see that it is a reasonable concession, and having conceded it in the case of the McKenna Duties and silk, it ought also to apply to lace.

Captain BENN: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman why the same exemption is not granted to hops? Hops are
also taxed under this Bill for the first time. Why should you make a distinction between hops and these other articles. This is rather an important matter. We have been going through this Bill at lightning speed, and this is the last chance to make the law accurate. Hops are referred to in Section 7 of the Finance Bill, and it seems to me that to give the same advantage to hops would be the right thing to do to bring matters into line.

Mr. GUINNESS: I should think the answer clearly is that no cases of re-importation ever occur in connection with consumable stores like hops. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that there were duties on consumable stores long before the McKenna Duties were first imposed, and it was never found inconvenient to apply the old-standing provisions of the law, because if articles of that kind were re-imported after export the re-importation was only on a very limited scale. It would be quite unnecessary to apply this special provision, which was first enacted in connection with the McKenna Duties, to consumable stores.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 37, after the word "four", insert the words "or section six."—[Mr. Guinness.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Super-tax for 1925–26.)

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
Of all the concessions made in this ill-balanced Budget this is the least justifiable and the least helpful. It was not asked for, it certainly was not expected, and at a time when trade and industry are passing through a period of unparalleled depression, when there are 1,250,000 unemployed, when the ordinary taxpayer is at his wits' end to meet the calls that are made upon him, it seems to me a gratuitous insult to the rest of the community to single out the Super-tax payer for this great concession. One would have thought a man well above the poverty line, enjoying £2,000 a year or more, could have waited until more pressing and more necessitous cases had been met. Whereas the income of the more fortunate members of the community, those who pay Income Tax and Super-tax, have been rising, the incomes of the lees
fortunate, the wage-earners, have been falling. The Income Tax assessment has increased during the last two years by £130,000,000; at the same time wages have fallen by £500,000,000. Yet this is the time of all others that has been chosen to give to those who have rather than to those who have not. The Super-tax payer to-day is relatively better off than before the War. In 1913 there were 14,000 Super-tax payers at the limit in force then of £5,000 a year. That number increased last year to 27,000, or nearly double. The gross taxable income for Income Tax was £1,000,000,000 in 1913, and has grown now to £3,000,000,000, showing that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
The extra relief granted to Super-tax payers amounts to £347 in the case of a man with £7,000 a year; a man with £10,000 a year gets a relief, in his Supertax alone, of £572; and the man with £15,000 a year gets a gift of £822. Surely there has been a strange conception of the relative needs of the taxpayers. The man with £500 a year, struggling along with a family to keep, gets a paltry relief of £6. This is an illustration of the old saying that "Unto him that hath shall be given." We find this principle accentuated in the relief given to the direct as compared with the indirect taxpayer. In this year £42,000,000 is given in relief of direct taxation, but there is practically no relief to indirect taxation. Since the War £200,000,000 has been given in relief of direct taxation, as against £50,000,000 for indirect taxation. That is given as the reason why some adjustment should be made to give more relief to the direct taxpayer as against the indirect taxpayer and it is said that this is necessary because the indirect taxpayer is contributing only 37 per cent. as against 63 per cent. by the direct taxpayer. Surely the true test ought to be the ability to pay and therefore there is no virtue in the 50–50 theory. We are told that this reduction will stimulate trade but the great bulk of the Super-tax payers do not come into industry at all and under these circumstances how they can possibly stimulate industry I fail to understand. The great mass of this money is drawn by the rentier class as rent, mort gages, interest on debentures and ordinary preference shares.
It is suggested that this reduction will help to increase the reserve of capital,
but after last night's Debate I think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be convinced that that theory does not hold water, because he said it has not been proved that we are in need of more capital, and what we need is not more capital but more orders. That is quite true, because in the North you find shipyards idle not because they have not the capital but because they have not the orders. Blast works and steel works are standing by not for want of capital but for want of orders. How are you going to relieve industry by this concession to the Super-tax payer on the theory that he will have more money to put into trade, when even at the present moment so much capital is lying unemployed?
How can this relief to the Super-tax payer possibly be a relief to industry because the Super-tax does not enter into the cost of production and it is paid after the profits are made? The trades which are most in distress are those where there is no work being done and no profits being made, and you are not going to relieve those trades by making this concession to the Super-tax payer. A concession might be made in regard to the charges which fall on industry, such as unemployment benefit and pensions, and yet instead of seeking to relieve industry in this way the money is devoted to a reduction of the Super-tax. The sum of £20,000,000 will be required as a charge for pensions, and if the Supertax had remained it would have been much easier to meet the charge for pensions, instead of which the Government are placing a further burden on industry. If the Treasury could have made some grant-in-aid of the rates that would have been a much better policy, and it would, at any rate, have been some stimulus to trade. At the present time our shipyards are idle because they cannot stand the charges placed upon them by the local rates, and if the Government had made a grant-in-aid of the rates it would have done much to stimulate trade. At a time like the present, when industry is so depressed and the unemployed are so numerous, to single out the richest section of the community for this special benefit will not help towards a revival of trade, nor will it help the other heavily-burdened taxpayers in the struggle they are having at the present time.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
Those who come from the North of England are very much affected by this Budget, and before the Bill goes through we want to enter our protest against what we regard as an extremely bad Budget, and the blackest part is the £10,000,000 which is being given to the Super-tax payers. Whilst we regard this as the blackest part, I think it would be difficult to find any Bright parts in the Budget because altogether it is an extremely bad Budget. I have seen no less than three Budgets introduced in this House, and, in my opinion, this is by far the worst of the three. Even the Tory financial proposals of 1923 were a much better Budget than this, and I think the present Budget can be properly described as a real bobby-dazzler introduced to dazzle the people of this country and really gives them nothing.
I have two chief objections to the reduction of this Super-tax The first is that it gives relief to rich people who do not need it, and the second is that the present is a most inopportune time to give the Super-tax payers relief when the working classes generally are suffering so much poverty. Not only does that apply to the working classes generally, but it applies even more to the class which I represent in this House, the mining class in the North of England, who are to-day in a worse position than ever I have known them. The bulk of the mining class are now right down in the pit of poverty. In my county we have 60,000 men out of employment, and if you form a rough calculation in regard to those 60,000 men it is fair to assume that we have in the County of Durham in the mining district something like 200,000 people who are living at the present time either on Poor Law relief or else upon unemployment and insurance benefit. Most of these people are miners out of work, and they are drawing unemployment insurance benefit, but we have thousands who are not even getting unemployment insurance benefit because the Government have taken steps to so tighten the Regulations that they have simply cut off thousands of men in the County of Durham from this benefit, and they are now in receipt of Poor Law relief. Not only are these men who are out of work in a poverty-stricken
condition, but we have a large number of men who are working for extremely small wages, and are not much better off than the men who are out of employment. I have in my hands here four pay notes of men in employment, and I got them only last week-end. One of them got parish relief during the miners' lock-out in 1921, and he was ordered to pay 15s. towards the repayment of that Poor Law relief. After that sum had been deducted and another 5s. for other payments, that man for one week's work had 14s. 9d. left. He received 14s. 9d. for the twenty-third week this year. For the twenty-second week the man had 32s. 6d. to take, after working five days, and with the payments I have mentioned he was left with 14s. 9d I know a lot of people who would not go down a coal mine and come straight back without working for 14s. 6d., and yet this man worked) five days a week for seven hours a day, and after doing that he had the handsome sum of 14s. 9d. left. For the twenty-second week his earnings were 23s. 6d., for the twenty-first week 23s 6d., and for the twenty-fourth week 23s. 6d.
In the name of these men who are in this poverty-stricken condition, we enter our protest against this Government giving relief to the Super-tax payers. I think we are entitled to remind the Financial Secretary that a return was issued showing that there were 89,000 Super-tax payers in this country, and that after they had paid Super-tax on £177,000,000, they had still £10 per day each left. When people have £10 per day each left after paying Super-tax, we consider that if there was £10,000,000 to give away it should not have been given to these wealthy people, but it should have been given to the working classes who need relief and help so much at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said one of his objects in reducing this tax was to stimulate trade, but how does this granting of £10,000,000 to the Supertax payers relieve industry?
8.0 P.M.
It certainly would have helped the mining industry, and we are most emphatic in saying that if the Government, instead of giving this £10,000,000 to the Super-tax payers, had devoted it to the mining industry, it would have been a great benefit to the coal trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) once said that in the mining industry
there were three horses, one was the miners, the other the coalowners and the third the royalty owners. Under this Budget the only people connected with the mining industry who will get any benefit at all will be the royalty owners, and they are just the class of people who do not need any help. As a matter of fact, the return for the coalfields, for the quarter ending March, shows that coalowners in the County of Durham were paid for that quarter 6.64d. per ton as royalties, and when we remember that some of the great royalty owners in the North of England, like the Duke of Northumberland, are drawing £82,000 a year, we have no hesitation in saying that it is a wicked thing on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give £10,000 to these rich people, while he simply leaves the working classes in the condition in which they are. Why did the Chancellor give this £10,000 to the wealthy classes of this country and leave the working class in their present poverty-stricken condition? Did he give this £10,000,000 to the wealthy people, simply because they are the class that gives financial support to the party on the other side? It seems to me that has been one of the main reasons why the Chancellor has given this £10,000,000 to his own friends, in order that his own friends might give more liberal support to the Tory funds in the future.
The miners have a greater claim to the £10,000,000, for the reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was budgeting to receive £9,000,000 as reparation. If the Chancellor is going to receive that amount in reparation, then it ought to have been given to the miners rather than to the other class, because the great cause of the ruin of the coal industry of this country is reparation, and when anything is received as reparation from the German Government, I submit that the miners have the greater and prior claim to the money. But the Chancellor, instead of relieving the miners and helping the mining industry to get on its feet, has laid a new burden on the industry in connection with the pensions that will amount in the county of Durham to £260,000 a year. Nearly one-half of the coalfields are closed at the present time, and the adding of this £260,000,000 simply means the closing of most of the remaining coal pits. Taking the whole of the
coalfields of Great Britain, it means putting an additional burden of something like £2,000,000 upon that industry.
This is not the time to put additional burdens on the mining industry. This is the time when, if there is any money to spare, it should be used to help that industry. The condition, not only of the mining classes, but of the working classes generally in this country, is such that the Government ought to aim at relieving the working classes generally, rather than the wealthy classes. In 1923, no fewer than 61,000 people in this country died in Poor Law institutions. The Government ought to have come to the rescue of this class of people, and I want, on behalf of the miners of the North of England, and the miners' representatives in this House, to enter my emphatic protest against giving this £10,000,000 to the rich classes of this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has taken rather too wide a range by way of illustration of the Super-tax, and I hope other hon. Members will not follow him.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment dealt with such subjects as the growth of wealth, the number of Super-tax payers and the claims to relief of other classes, which, I venture to submit, do not arise on this particular proposal at all. Hon. Members opposite are never weary of making out that this Super-tax alteration is a relief to the rich. They make out that we had a certain balance at our disposal, of which we have disposed in this way, instead of giving it, as the hon. Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey) thinks we should have done, in helping the coalmining industry. Of course, it is the business of any Opposition to bring forward alternative proposals for dealing with any Budget surplus, but it is necessary in this connection to remember that this Super-tax alteration is not dealing with a normal Budget surplus in any sense. This has been brought forward as a definite rearrangement of taxation in particular ranges of income. It is limited to those classes of fortunes which are paying an equivalent increased amount in Death Duties. It is quite true we cannot exactly adjust the increases and decreases to make it absolutely certain that every individual will come out the same,
but what we have done is to take particular ranges of income, and particular ranges of fortune for death duties, and to equalise the remission of burden in the one case with the increase of load in the other.
It is very remarkable that hon. Members opposite deliberately ignore that definite basis on which the whole of this proposal rests. In these Debates they avoid ever mentioning them, though they must fully realise that the two proposals hang together. You have only got to look at the tables to see that we have carried that out, that we limit our increase of Death Duty to a figure where the decrease of Super-tax ceases to operate. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said that this proposal would not help industry. We believe it will help industry, for the reason that the man who has made money, the man who is earning money by his brains and his efforts, is more likely to control that money wisely, and to invest it to the advantage of industry, than the man who has not made that money, but inherited it as a windfall, Therefore, we say it is better to relieve the individual during his lifetime, and to put upon him an exactly equivalent burden at his death, and we have done that deliberately, because we believe it is in the national interest that people should have the control of their income to a larger extent in their lives, not for their own benefit, because their fortune will bear the same load eventually, but because we believe that in that way we shall secure investments out of savings, and wiser investments than under the present system.
The hon. Member alluded to something which I said in a different connection yesterday, about no evidence having been brought forward that, generally speaking, industries were suffering from lack of capital. He was quite justified in what he said, but I made the limitation "generally speaking." The whole point of my argument yesterday was not that industry was in need of capital, but that, in supplying industry with capital, you must not do it without discrimination. You must not assume that all industries throughout the country are in need of capital, that we must give a flat rate of remission of taxation on whatever they devote to reserves, but that we must find
some more discriminating method than the Clause of yesterday. We do believe, however, that saving is necessary. We do believe that some of our industries are in grave need of capital. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which one?"] Undoubtedly a great many industries do need capital.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention an industry that is short of capital because the capital is not in the country now?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman of lots of industries that need capital, as is evidenced by applications I see weekly to the Trade Facilities Committee, industries which—unlike those great War industries which extended their plant beyond the present necessity—can only get started if they can get an adequate supply of capital at a price within their capacity. I am afraid this is getting away from the Clause, and that I am transgressing in the way that Mr. Speaker warned us we must avoid. I want to remind the House that this is not a remission of taxation out of a Budget surplus. It is a readjustment of burdens in the same ranges of income as the increased load that is being thrown upon them.

Mr. DALTON: Am I mistaken in thinking, that whereas estates of over £1,000,000 are not going to pay increased Death Duty, incomes of millionaires are going to get relief in respect of Super-tax?

Mr. GUINNESS: Of course, the machinery of Super-tax is such that it does not coincide exactly with the graduation for the purpose of Estate Duty, but as nearly as possible the balance is exact. It is true that there are variations—

Mr. DALTON: My particular point was correct?

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly, and, of course, the largest estates will get other concessions. It is applicable to the whole range of all incomes; but we have done our best to adjust the balance—

Mr. DALTON: It is a pretty poor best!

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member, no doubt, is an expert on scientific taxation, but I do not know that anyone on his side of the House has ever given us the
slightest light on that subject. They have never looked at it from the point of view of balancing the benefit of taxing a man heavily during his life or taxing him equally heavily on his death. If they can find a better way of adjusting this balance after which we are striving, surely it is their duty to put it forward. It is not, if I may suggest it, an effective method of criticism to ignore the whole basis on which this proposal is brought forward and to treat it as if it were something entirely different.

Mr. BROMLEY: I hope, though I fear with very little chance of realisation, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may accept this Amendment. I fear that all appeals will fall upon deaf ears, but I think it my duty to intervene in this Debate to add my protest against the relief of the burden of Super-tax payers, in the present state of this country. The Financial Secretary has pointed out that it is a readjustment, and we are prepared to accept that, but I suggest that it would have been a far more humane and just readjustment had this £10,000,000 per annum been removed, say, from the taxation on foodstuffs. That would have been equivalent to an advance in wages to the working people and the lower middle-class people of this country, but, instead of that, the readjustment has been made to assist people with incomes of over £2,000 per annum. I do not want to gibe at people who are in that fortunate position, but I do suggest to the Financial Secretary and to the Government that they are people who could have waited for relief for some little time.
If the country were in something like a normal state, it would be quite fair, in any budgeting or taxation under this system, to which some of us object, to share the benefits all round; but some of us are anxious to see a more Christian and less scrambling system than the present one. We recognise, however, that, while it is here, in normal times, it may be quite fair to share all round what relief may be given, but this is a time when hon. and right hon. Members on the Government benches are appealing to trade unionists and to the working people to be reasonable, to give up something in the interests of industry; and, while so much terrible suffering exists, and there are so few of us in this House who can really realise it—even we on these benches
can hardly realise all the sufferings of our people who are unemployed, who are in poverty and distress—I do protest against a Budget being brought forward by representatives of the well-to-do party which eases the apparent burden—because it is not a burden—of Super-tax payers. If hon. Members opposite realised, and if the Government realised the psychology of the working people, they would never dare, hoping for peace in the future, to ask the working people to suffer further reductions on the top of the hundreds of millions in wage reductions that they have suffered, while keeping the taxes on their foodstuffs and adding taxes on their little bit of finery and artificial silk, and at the same time making a present of £10,000,000 per annum to wealthy Super-tax payers.
I join issue, and always shall, with the suggestion that relieving this taxation is going to stimulate industry. I deny it. I represent a constituency of clever, highly skilled workpeople who are absolutely broken. The railway companies are dismissing men, the shipyards are almost empty, the steel works are closed, some business people are going bankrupt, shops are closing; and I suggest that the wealthy Super-tax payer who gets relief and has money to invest is not going to help these small shopkeepers. His investment will most likely be in world-wide profitable investments, such as in Shanghai, which is causing trouble at the moment, or in India for the manufacture of cotton cloth to undersell our own Manchester operatives. If this benefit had been spread over the working people's wages they would have spent it in a potential home market that never appears to be within sight of the well-to-do people, which would have kept these small shopkeepers going, and would have kept trade in this country by creating a call from the working people. I deny that to give this benefit to extremely wealthy people is going to help the business of this country, because it will most likely be invested abroad. That is the reason why I am adding my protest to the volume of, I am afraid, hopeless and useless protest and appeal to the representatives of the well-to-do in the present Government, to realise that they are creating in the minds of the working people a psychology that they may regret.
May I point out that to request the working people to lose wages and give them up cheerfully, while wealthy people are relieved, is equivalent to increasing the income, whether earned or unearned, of the well-to-do people who receive this relief. Their wages are put up at the same time that we are appealed to in the interests of the country, to lower our wages. The day after to-morrow the great railway companies are calling us all together, and I shall be there, amongst others, to ask us, I believe, to suffer a reduction. If some of us object we shall be called wild men and unreasoning trade unionists; but how can I, for one, representing highly skilled men working in one of the most responsible occupations in this country as far as human life is concerned —how can I, while Super-tax payers and Income Tax payers are getting an advance in their wages by the present Budget, say to the people whom I am trying honestly to represent that I have been sent to ask that they, while receiving no relief, shall have their wages reduced? My duty, the day after to-morrow, will be to say, "No." The 60,000 or 70,000 people I represent have suffered losses, have suffered reductions in wages, while other people have had relief. Here is a further advance in the wages of the well-to-do, and in the same breath we are asked to suffer this.
While well-to-do people are getting this advance through the machinery of government that they control for the time being, I am not going to agree. What will be said then? I shall get my old character back again. Well, I am rather proud of it. I am rather proud of standing up for the people who have made me what I am and without whom I am nothing—my own people from whom I have sprung. I do not want to prolong the agony, because I believe that, as I have said, our protest here will be in vain, but I want finally to call the attention of the Government to this very important fact, that they do not appear to understand or about which they do not care—namely, the psychology of the workers—when they are giving £10,000,000 per annum to wealthy people, plus other Income Tax relief, and at the same time they are asking working trade unionists to suffer reductions. If we cannot conscientiously ask them to do so, then we shall be attacked in the Press—not that we trouble about that, because,
while our consciences are clear and we are doing our duty, that cuts no ice whatever. Now I have a chance of putting it through this sounding board of the nation, and I would appeal to the Chancellor to accept the Amendment, to let the well-to-do people wait a little longer, and then there will be an appearance of sincerity in asking the working people to suffer further in their wage deductions.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I do not know whether or not it is too late for us to vote for the acceptance of this Amendment, but it is not too late for us to get at the real reason why this relief is being given to Super-tax payers. We have had various reasons. The most peculiar of all is the attempt that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to associate this reduction in Super-tax with the increase in Death Duties. I could have understood that if, accompanied with this reduction, there was some guarantee offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although he was now reducing the Super-tax he was going to increase the Death Duties. The present position is this. He has reduced the Income Tax this year, but before these men die we shall find that he has reduced the Death Duties as well. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has said so!"] He has not actually said so, but he has indicated that that is his intention. He said there was no room for adjustment in the Death Duties except in a, downward direction. If that is the case it is obviously the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, if he touches the Death Duties of wealthy men possessing over £2,000,000 at all in the future, to reduce them, and I think it is an utterly untenable position to take up to try to associate these two taxes and to excuse the one on the ground that at some future time he will make an increase in the other. I want also to associate myself with the remarks which have been made from these benches, and by hon. Members above the Gangway, that there could not have been a more inopportune time than this to grant relief to Super-tax payers. The miners are being asked to live on starvation wages. The railwaymen, including directors, by some unusually magnanimous gesture, are consenting to make reductions all
round in their remuneration, and every class of the community is being asked to make sacrifices, and at a time like this they come along and take £6,500,000 of taxation off shoulders which in all honesty have never felt it in the last 10 years.
We have heard a great deal about sacrifices on behalf of the country. Men are appealed to to work longer hours in order to save the country in a time of industrial depression. I am not saying anything about the claims that have been made to men to give their lives for the country. We need examples of men who are prepared to live for the country. At present they are standing on the brink of their industrial difficulties, pleading for some aid from trade facilities, hesitating to risk what capital they have got. There is no need for new capital in industry as the Financial Secretary said. What there is need for is for some men of enterprise who will use the capital there is in those industries and risk it. Would it not be a splendid spectacle if the Financial Secretary could point to some great capitalists and say, "Look at them. They are taking these risks, trading with Russia, or some other country, without any guarantee of interest or return." At present the capitalist is trembling on the brink before he goes in for any venture at all. I should like to see a spirit of greater enterprise shown by them, thus giving an example of men who would live for their country—wealthy men as well as poor men. On these grounds, and especially on the ground of the futility of the Financial Secretary's plea that the Estate Duty and Super-tax can be linked together, I hope every fair-minded Member of Parliament will vote in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says we on these benches ignore the compensatory nature of the Budget proposals. I think I am expressing the ideals of those who sit upon these benches when I say the reason why we so largely ignore the compensatory nature of these Clauses is that we are not very much concerned about it. There is a certain amount of money to be raised in order to meet the national expenditure. That money has to be raised from very rich men, or very poor men, or both—the rich
men and the poor men in different proportions. Our objection—and it is a very vital point in the whole of this Budget, at any rate to my mind and one that we are justified in concentrating our attack upon —to the £10,000,000 relief to Super-tax payers is that it directly relieves people who have less need of relief than large numbers of other people, and that is a sufficient justification for us. I have been very much interested in the lame excuse of the Financial Secretary for the remission of Super-taxation. We have heard right through the Debate a great deal about the necessity for enterprise and initiative in industry and the advantage the remission of taxation upon high incomes gives to industry by releasing capital for investment and enterprise and initiative. The speech we have just heard also laboured the point about enterprise. Industry, and, therefore, employment, which is underneath all the argument which has been brought forward, do not depend upon enterprise and initiative primarily. The old idea that is expressed in the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Conservative Members—an exceedingly old one—is that rich men find work, that only by the multiplication of riches, and, therefore, the multiplication of a wages fund—an old economic heresy—will it be possible to find work for the people of the country. It reminds me of a piece of doggerel verse, written by a very clever person many years ago. It went this way:
Dives feasted daily and was gorgeously arrayed,
Not because he liked it but that it was good for trade.
That others might have calico he clothed himself in silk
And surfeited himself with cream that they might have more milk.
In short, out of sympathy with the deserving poor
He did no work himself that they might do the more.
That seems to me to be the idea at the back of the economic arguments which have been advanced in favour of remission of taxation to super-wealthy people. Initiative and enterprise are not the first stone in the edifice of industrial development. They are the result, and not the cause, of demand and of the real health of the nation industrially.
May I, by way of illustration, point to the laudatory articles which were written on the death of Lord Leverhulme a month
or so ago? We had in all the newspapers articles to the effect that he was a great organiser of labour who found employment for large numbers of working people. That statement was entirely absurd, and it is precisely the basis of the arguments which are brought forward with regard to this point. Lord Leverhulme did not find work. If he had never been born the people of this country and other countries who buy soap would certainly not have used a bar of soap less simply because he had not been born. Not in the slightest degree is the question of the investment of capital the primary cause of providing work. Lord Leverhulme was not a maker of soap but a seller of soap, and he sold soap and made his fortune because he was able, by advertising and good organisation and so forth, to get hold of business, and if he had not got hold of it other firms would have done. No one washes twice over because there is a Life-buoy soap to be bought. There is a certain definite market for soap. There is a certain definite market for food and clothing. The reason why capital is shy of investing in this industry or that industry is because people are not buying things, and because they cannot afford to do so That is the secret. Instead of our talking about finding work by the investment of surplus wealth waiting for investment, we want to begin by the principle of finding markets, and one of the best possible markets that we can find is the home market, which has been depleted by the low wages of the people in this country. The whole idea of finding work is an absurdity. No business man goes out of his way to find work that it is not necessary to do. No wife in her domestic affairs goes about the house trying to find work. That is absurd. What we have to do is to solve a very clear and definite problem, and that is how to feed, clothe, educate and house a population of 45,000,000 of people. When we have succeeded in doing that—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member is going rather beyond the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I apologise. I rather hinted at the possibility of my doing that. I am exceedingly sorry that I have offended to that degree.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has defended this remission of taxation on the plea that it would assist in the development of industry, and are we not entitled to reply to that by saying that it will do no such thing?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Up to a certain point that is true, but the hon. Member was going a little beyond that.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I have indicated the ideas that I had in my mind in regard to the basic economics that are involved in the proposals in this Clause, and the general arguments that we have had from the other side in defence of the relief of the Super-tax payers. It comes back to this, that what industry wants, first and foremost, is not capital initiative or enterprise. That would be forthcoming when you have the markets and you can show profit in the selling of goods. Not until you can show that profit and that it is worth while will capital, however much its surplus wealth is relieved from taxation, provide the initiative and enterprise. I join my protest with that of others from these benches against the wicked proposal to relieve from taxation people who have more money than they know how to spend, usefully or otherwise, whilst there is so much appalling poverty and whilst the results of unemployment are causing the demoralisation of so many of our people.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has stated that the men and women on this side of the House never weary of making out that the Super-tax alteration is a relief of the rich. I hope they never will cease to make out that every reduction of Super-tax is a relief of the rich, and that it is an addition to the possible luxury of the rich at the expense of the absolute necessaries of the poor. I hope that the men and women on this side of the House will never cease to protest against any action taken by any Government which will widen still further the tremendous gulf that exists between those who are comfortably and extra comfortably off, and those who are struggling day by day against poverty. I hope the men and women on this side of the House will never cease to protest and warn the people of this country of the danger that must arise in any community where there
is a perpetual and ever-increasing aggregation of wealth in the hands of a few and an ever-enlarging body of poor at the basis of the State.
Looking back over the rise and fall of great nations, I can see no cause which is so demonstrably proved for the collapse of great social organisations as the fact that by the gradual process of the transformation of wealth from wealth in goods, which can be enjoyed, and which have to be re-created, to wealth in credit power, which is represented by no goods, there has been a gathering in the hands of a few of a power which not only destroys the productive life of the community, but gives into the hands of those who hold it the destinies of all those who are subservient to them, because of their lack of that wealth or that credit. It has been said that this reduction of Super-tax is not a relief of the taxation of the rich, because it is counter-balanced by a new set of Estate Duties upon the estates of the rich. You cannot divide up the people into such comfortable groups as that. The Super-tax is paid by people who are rich relatively in annual income. It does not follow that they are rich in the accumulations.
The returns sent out by the Inland Revenue show an amazingly small number who pay Super-tax upon incomes which are the result of their direct earnings, and a very astounding number whose incomes, upon which they pay Super-tax, flow to them not as the product of their energy, skill or industry, but as the product of the accumulation of savings made either by themselves or other people. It is not true to say that a reduction of Super-tax is counter-balanced by an increase of Death Duties. In the first place, if this reduction of Super-tax is going to be of any use to the friends of hon. Members opposite, it must be a reduction which is going to be enjoyed over a number of years. So long as the people enjoy the reduction in Super-tax, their estates are not mulcted in the increased Death Duties. It is only when they have ceased to be able to enjoy the reduction in Super-tax that the Government is going to get what they call a counter-balancing amount from the Death Duties. This reduction in Super-tax is not counter-balanced by an increase in Death Duties. It is counter-balanced by an imposition of other duties.
It is counter-balanced by the imposition of a new tax upon those things which are just the means of raising the poor from the verge of absolute necessaries into the realm of small comforts. It would almost seem, judging from the manner in which this Budget has been presented, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had made up their minds that as soon as the poor folk of this country began to reach the stage when they passed from the daily grind something must be done to them to keep them in their place. I remember some 20 years ago in the West of Scotland in one of the most lovely islands in the world, a man who had saved all his life built a house, and in planning this house he provided for a bathroom with a bath. The proprietor of that island refused permission to him to have a bathroom in his house on the ground that the people of that class of life did not require a bath or a bathroom in their houses, and it is very much the same with this Budget.

Mr. ERSKINE: Could you give the name of this landlord?

Mr. MITCHELL: I will give the name of the house, the proprietor, the island and everything. The house is called "Shanghai."

Mr. ERSKINE: Chinese.

Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, and many an hon. Gentleman who sits on the benches opposite is very proud to be reminded of services rendered in China. The house is in the district of Kilpatrick, next to Blackwaterfoot in the island of Arran, which lies in the Firth of Clyde, the owner of the land was the Duke of Hamilton, and the man who built the house was a man of a longer lineage than the Duke, named Bannatyne. It is been said that the reduction of Super-tax will benefit the consumer. May point out that there is a very great difference between an increase in the income of those who have £1,000 a year and more, and an increase in the income of those who have merely £100 a year. The person with the smaller sum is one whose life is very much decided by what happens from one Friday to another. All that is received on Friday is expended by the following Friday, and almost all that
is received on the one Friday is expended between that and the following Friday upon goods which are absolutely consumed and have to be recreated to meet the demand for the week following by the same people. But when people get to the stage of having £400 or £500 or £1,000 a year, all their money is not expended week by week. There is a certain margin, a reserve, and to that extent, and as the margin increases so does the proportion of the weekly demand for consumable goods decrease. I see from the Inland Revenue returns that the wages in this country in 1920 amounted to over £900,000,000 a year. Three years later they had fallen by £600,000,000. That meant that in 1923 £600,000,000 less was earned and therefore spent week by week on goods which were quickly consumed and had to be recreated, and consequently had to employ people in the recreation of them. I find that at the same time the incomes of people who pay Super-tax, far from being diminished by 66 per cent., as was the case of the wage earners, had increased by something like £170,000,000 a year.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the amount of wages paid in 1923 was only one-third the amount paid in 1920?

Mr. MITCHELL: The returns of the Inland Revenue show that the wages—

Mr. PERRING: It is the Income Tax payers.

Mr. MITCHELL: Of the wage-earning Income Tax payer. I am sorry if I have misled the House in any way.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is not speaking of all the wages?

Mr. MITCHELL: No. The income of the wage-earning Income Tax payer had been diminished by £600,000,000. The wage-earning Income Tax payer is the person of whom I am speaking. He uses his means week by week in buying consumable goods, which are consumed during the week by himself and his family. He does not buy goods which last a very long time. If he does buy things which last, unfortunately most of them are of a shoddy nature which are not very permanent, and have to be recreated. But the Super-tax payer, with his additional £170,000,000 a year, does not use
that in consumable goods which have to be recreated. He spends it on luxuries. Anyone who comes from the North and has begun to look at London must feel not so much envy of the rich, but rather a pity for those who think that wealth which has been created for their use by other people should be so utilised by them as to degrade them and degrade all whom they employ in feeding their pleasures. This atmosphere of pleasure without conscience and wealth without work is destructive not only to the people who presumably enjoy it, but very degrading to all who are engaged in making that form of pleasure for their use.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was advocating a totally different cause, once said that the home market represented five out of six parts of the total trade of this country, and it is the home market in which the wages of the wage earners are consumed, and industry to the extent of five parts out of six is dependent upon the expenditure of the wages of the wage earning people. Much as we may challenge the motive of his statements, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least very seldom leaves himself open to challenge on the question of accuracy. He says that five-sixths of the work of this country arises from the home production of goods which are consumed in the homes, and therefore by diminishing the Super-tax you are giving more money to people who cannot consume it, and do not consume it, and you are depriving people who would consume the goods week by week, and so increase employment, of the means of dong so. It seems to me the meanest possible thing for right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who have never known in their minds or in the minds of their wives one moment's anxiety about what they shall eat or drink or how they shall get the clothes which they wish to wear—they are men in whose lives the question of where the money is to come from does not exercise one moment's anxiety or trouble.
I would not speak like that if I were not in the same position myself. Where there is the position that the things we need, the things we want and desire, are all obtained for us by the mere signing of a cheque, when we know that no person in our family ever has to worry about necessaries or ordinary comforts,
and perhaps has to argue only as to the wisdom of luxuries, whereas among other folk, the very heart and bosom of the nation, you have women whose lives are a perpetual struggle and anxiety to make ends meet—it seems to me the meanest thing possible for men in that position in life, representing other folk in a less favourable position in life, to use their power for the purpose of obtaining the status and prestige which even their wealth could not buy for them, and then to deprive others of the small comforts and pretty things of life, to take from them £7,500,000, to take away the little daintinesses of their womenfolk and hand it over to add to an already very large superfluity in the hands of the wealthy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always said throughout these Debates, "I want revenue." He cannot have been speaking the truth when he said that, or he would not deliberately have denuded himself of the revenue which came from this Super-tax. It is not that he wants revenue; it is that he wants to readjust the basis of taxation, so that the poor, who have always, in the long run, to pay all the taxes through their labour, shall pay now without knowing that they pay through indirect taxation, in order that he might go back to the rich and those who are comfortably off and say, "You see what we have done for you. Next year, when your tax demand comes in, you will find that you have been relieved of £7,500,000, and, therefore, industry will prosper and commerce will flourish." It is a very serious thing to speak about a political action as mean, but I know nothing meaner than to increase the poverty and the sorrow of the poor for the benefit and the luxury of the rich.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I would like to say a few words about the reduction of the Super-tax and the alteration of the Death Duties. I can do so with very great freedom, because the first does not interest me and the second never will, and I do not think it will interest even my descendants. I disagree entirely with the arguments of the last speaker, that there will not be any improvement in employment because of the changes that have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that more money
will be spent by those who have this relief in Super-tax, and that this will result in more employment, is very sound. It is a sound policy to encourage people when they are alive rather than to worry a great deal about what they are going to do after they are dead. Personally, I would rather have a live mouse than a dead lion. Members of the House will agree, at any rate, that whilst taxation has been very heavy indeed, many people have had to look around and see where they could economise, and in that economy they have been compelled to bring about unemployment. The reverse applies—that if there were a saving in the payment of taxation they would again look round and see where the could spend money in order to find employment.
One hon. Member said that no employer would find work for the sake of doing so. How does he know? [HON. MEMBERS: "By experience!"] Hon. Members may have experience, but they have not all the experience; there is a little bit left to someone else. They think that they have not only all the experience but all the virtues. They are not in that position exactly. At any rate if they wish us to believe in their sincerity, they ought to give us credit for being sincere also, for we are just as anxious to see an improvement in the conditions of the poor — at any rate I feel so—as any hon. Member who sits on the Labour benches. I would rather be the gardener or the chauffeur of a millionaire Socialist or someone like him—someone like the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Health—than be an out-of-work cotton spinner. I hope that if the time should come when I have to look for a job, I shall be able to go to some of my wealthy friends on the Labour benches and ask them for work. Instead of agreeing with the argument of the Socialists, that there will be no more work found because of this revision of taxation, I regret very much indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not done more, because I firmly believe it is because this direct taxation has been crushing not only industry but those engaged in it for the last few years, that our position with regard to unemployment is as bad as it is, and immeasurably worse than that of any other nation in the world. Hon. Members on the Labour
Benches say that we do not understand. The hon. Member who spoke last said that no one on the Government side knew anything about the hardships that had to be undergone. Again I say, how does he know?

Mr. R. MITCHELL: I never said any such thing. I said that you do know it but you do not feel it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not wish to misrepresent my hon. Friend. I listened very carefully to his speech and with very great enjoyment, and I agreed with a great deal of it. I imagine that his ideals and mine are not very far apart. Our only difference would be as to the method of setting about the improvement of conditions. I understood him to say that Members on this side knew nothing about the pinch of necessity, and that all they had to consider was which luxury they should buy or which they should do with out. I think that is a fair representation of his statement?

Mr. R. MITCHELL: Yes.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Again I ask hon. Members, how do they know? No man knows better how the shoe pinches than the man who is wearing it. It is all very well for hon. Members above the Gangway to suggest that all those on the other side are living in the best of all possible worlds and they themselves are the only people who suffer hardship. How do they know? When we say we believe that a reduction in direct taxation would bring about an improvement in the conditions of the people and reduce unemployment, we are just as sincere as they are when they say that this reduction is mean and is simply a sop to the rich. I do not agree with that view. Three or four years ago hon. Members who were then sitting on this side of the House and who are not here now, members of my own trade, were making money and doing well, and hon. Members above the Gangway then raised questions about the dividends which were being made by the cotton mills and said it was a shame that these dividends should be made. I ventured then to say that it was better to have the mills making dividends than to have the people out of work and the mills making losses. The position is changed now. Those mills are now making losses; men who were in a good position then are not in as good a position to-day, but hon.
Members above the Gangway are still dissatisfied. Unemployment is ten times worse than it has ever been before, because those mills are not doing well, and hon. Members should realise that when employers are doing well those who are employed are doing well, and it is a great mistake to assume that masters in industry must of necessity do badly in order that those who work for them should do well.

Mr. WALLHEAD: From what one has heard in the course of these Debates one would assume that there was virtue in spending by rich but not in spending by the poor. I suggest that the arguments of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell) is quite accurate, and that the spending of the poor finds a proportionately larger amount of employment than the spending of the rich. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. A week or two ago, in connection with a recent Court, I saw a notice of the fact that the train of a lady's dress cost £200. I cannot imagine how the train of the dress could be worth £200, no matter what the material was, unless it was made of pure gold, but I can imagine that £200 spent on working girls' frocks would find more employment than the making of the train. We argue in favour of the proposition that the spending power, the consuming power, should be given to the poor instead of to the superlatively rich, and that is why we oppose these schemes of taxation. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) has just referred to the bad times through which we are passing. Judging by the White Paper published by the Treasury at the presentation of the Budget, to talk of bad times is ridiculous. I have put this question before, and I put it again. Is it not the fact that the rich are richer this year than they were last year, in spite of all the talk about bad times? Hon. Members who dissent from that view must not have read the Chancellor's statement, because the right hon. Gentleman argues that if the Super-tax were left as it was, if no remission and no increase were made, he would receive as a result of the tax £7,000,000 more than the Chancellor received last year.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What about the average?

Mr. WALLHEAD: That is just what I am talking about. If last year the Supertax realised £62,500,000 and if the Chancellor estimates that the same tax this year would realise him £70,000,000, somebody must be richer than they were before.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Member understand the operation of the three years' average?

Mr. WALLHEAD: My argument about the Super-tax is not concerned with the three years' average.

Sir H. CROFT: Surely the hon. Member will admit that the Super-tax estimate in connection with the Budget of this year does not refer to this year's profits but the last year's.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The point to be realised is that in spite of bad trade, in spite of the fact that we have tremendous and appalling poverty, in spite of the fact that the penury of the people is deepening, there has been this increase which the Chancellor has estimated. I admit that the increasing poverty is not regretted alone by members on these benches but is regretted by all Members of the House. No one wishes to see this kind of thing, but it is a fact that the penury of the people is deepening day by day. I have been this week-end in my constituency, where 9,000 men and women are signing the unemployment roll. They are not unemployed because they are "wont-works" and wastrels. They are industrious, hard working people, out of employment because the pits have closed, and the pits have closed because they are not paying, and not for lack of capital. [HON. MEMBERS: "It may be."] No, that is not the urge. The urge is that the pits do not pay. That is the statement made. Yet here the fact emerges from the Chancellor's own estimate that a small handful of people have aggregate incomes which must be £22,000,000 more than they were in the previous 12 months, because he only takes one-third. That is something of which we have a right to ask an explanation.
The consuming power of the wealthy is in no need of being increased. It is large enough. Where a. greater consuming power is wanted is on the part of the great mass of the people. It is wanted in regard to the wearing of workaday boots,
suits of clothes, shirts, blouses and skirts, in regard to improved food and improved house furniture and floor coverings for the cottage—because drawing rooms can become a little shabby and the world will be none the worse, but let the kitchen suffer and all the world suffers. That is what we protest against in the proposals put before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Budget proves that there is a determination on the part of the wealthy people to maintain their hold and to keep what they have got, regard-lees of the sufferings of the mass of the people. I have heard a great deal about the increase of taxation. It troubles me but little. I believe the money we spend communally and collectively in the shape of taxes is the cheapest money we spend. The amount of tax does not really matter. What does matter is what we get for the taxes that we spend. I am less concerned with the full amount than I am with how the money is expended, and the worst of the whole business is that the money that is being taken from the poor by this method of broadening the basis of taxation is being spent upon unworthy things. There ought to be a reduction in the expenditure on armaments. There ought to be no expenditure on Singapore.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is wandering from the point.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I apologise, and I will come back to the point, which is that all this talk about the necessity of relieving the rich is not borne out by the facts. According to the Chancellor's own statement, the facts point to the rich being richer than they were, while admittedly the poor are becoming poorer. Our industry is struggling under a burden which it cannot carry, and the first sufferers in industry are the workers, who are mainly responsible for carrying along the industry of the country. That is the thing that we, on these benches, must continually insist upon, even as Shakespeare might say, with "damnable iteration." We shall continue to iterate this statement, whether hon. Members opposite like it or not.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: I, too, want to enter my protest against the reduction of the Super-tax, and suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that when he says we do not take into account the adjustment which the Chancellor of
the Exchequer is trying to make in this Clause, he is in error. It is because we have taken into account what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to do that we are opposed to the Clause. He is trying to make an adjustment of taxation, and is putting burdens upon industry, and industry is breaking down under those burdens. I am not arguing that all employers, merely because they are employers, are millionaires and have not any common sense. I happen to know some employers, and they are having a very bad time. I want to suggest that the Chancellor will not find Super-tax payers amongst those who have money invested in either the coal trade, the iron and steel trade, or the engineering and shipbuilding trades of this country, and it is because of that maladjustment that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make that I, for one, oppose the Clause. He suggests taking £7,500,000 off this year, and £10,000,000 next. In the same Budget he is putting taxes on the sugar of the poorest of the poor and taxes on the clothing of the poor, and he proposes taxing the weekly wages of everybody who works for wages for the provision of pensions and other things. That, I say, is an adjustment which is not in the interests of the people of this country. It is not in the interests of the poor, assuredly, and I, do not believe that it is in the interests of the wealthy either, because that taking of the burdens off the back of the wealthy and shoving them on to the poor can only go so far, when the poor will object.
I have felt, when we have been discussing this question of Income Tax and Super-tax, that here was a glorious chance for the rich to show their real patriotism and help the poor, not with talk, but by relieving their burdens, but we find hon. Members opposite, whether or not they are going to get any advantage out of this Super-tax Clause, voting for a reduction in their own Income Tax and the imposition of new taxes on people who, as the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell) said, have extreme difficulty in making both ends meet. I do not want to use the language he did, and say that this is one of the meanest things I know, but it certainly appeals to me as being mean for me to sit here to-night, getting the
benefit from a reduction in Income Tax, and voting for that, which I did not do, of course, and knowing that another citizen of this country is going to have extra burdens put upon him. Then we have had the most extraordinary reason I have ever heard for doing a thing like this. We are told that industry needs capital, and that these people who are going to get relief under these taxes will invest the money in industry. Apparently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his worthy colleague appear to think that, if they do not reduce these taxes, industry will not get capital, and that it is a fit and proper thing to relieve a rich man of taxes so that he can invest the money he is excused from paying at a profit to himself.
Personally, I do not think that is a wise thing to do, I do not think it is a reasonable thing to do, and I do not think it will go into the industries of this country that need helping the most. I wonder which hon. Member, on either side of this House, would invest money now in the iron and steel trade, in the coal trade, or in the engineering and shipbuilding trades, with a very few exceptions, if those industries were appealing for capital. In the "Times" this morning may be seen the report of a big; industry, with £9,000,000 of assets, that lost £500,000 last year, and can only pay a preference dividend by taking money out of reserve. Is that where the money is going, when these wealthy men can take their money into Government secured loans at from 5 per cent. to 7½per cent? I do not think it will go there.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Where are the 7½ percenters?

Mr. BAKER: Here is an hon. Member of this House who has never heard of the Hungarian, and German, and Austrian loans, and the loan that is out this morning for synthetic ammonia. If you only had time to analyse it, that is a beacon of light illuminating the situation into which this Government is driving the country. Last year, if the Government in office offered to secure a loan, they could raise money at 4½ per cent

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is out of order.

Mr. BAKER: I am sorry I am out of Order. When an hon. Member on this side was arguing that the rich were wealthier now and last year than they were before, he was interrupted, and Members wanted to ask questions, and did not believe it. Our information may be wrong. We only get it from the best statisticians in Britain and the Board of Trade and the Inland Revenue. I am quite prepared to think that the Inland Revenue can never be right if that will suit Members opposite. The Inland Revenue are the people who collect taxes and they record what they collect. They also record the incomes of the people who come under supervision. At the end of the year they publish a document and tell us what it is all about. Their estimate of the income for last year is £3,800,000,000. Sir Josiah Stamp, who, I believe, knows what he is talking about on this matter, estimated that the national income for 1920 was round about £4,000,000,000. Others have given estimates, but that estimate I think is a conservative one. That indicates a reduction in income for last year over the best year this country ever knew of £200,000,000. The Board of Trade publish statistics— and, after all, their statistics are our only guide—as to what is happening with regard to wages, and they tell us wages are down £518,000,000 a year below what they were in 1920.
If those figures be true, and it is those figures we are guided by, I, too, am of opinion that the incomes of the wealthy were higher in 1924 than they were in 1920, and they were higher by £300,000,000. There is no need to relieve those people of taxation in the hope of helping them. They do not need help. They are quite capable of looking after themselves. One of the difficulties of Members opposite is—and I can quite see their point of view—that if they ever hear a man or woman on these benches talking they believe we are getting at the wicked capitalist, and they do not realise what is taking place in their country, that the capitalist himself is getting just as much into the hands of the financier—which is a separate group altogether—and the industrialists, too, are just as much getting into the hands of the merchants, as the workman is in the hands of any of them.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I want in a word to enter my protest against these pro-
posals of the Government, not because I believe my protest will have any more influence than the protests already lodged. I am one of those who believe that if we who claim to represent the working classes expect nothing from the Tory party we will not be disappointed. That is exactly what we will get in connection with all this argument and debate. I am satisfied that so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned in giving this gift to the Super-tax payers he has been merely carrying out the old truly typical Tory policy of looking after their own friends. He has repeatedly pointed out in speeches when he was a Liberal that the Tory party always would look after the rich. When he has got back to the fold, the first thing he has done is to justify his statements in connection with the Tory party. There has not been a single argument from the other side justifying this remission of taxation to Super-tax payers because of any hardship being borne by them at the present moment. No one can justify this remission of taxation because of any hardship so far as the Super-tax payers are concerned.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) has submitted the most amazing argument in favour of this proposal. He has argued that, in giving back something to the Super-tax payer you allow him to save, so that there would be a chance of increase of capital in this country and an increase of employment. Unemployment is not rampant in this country to-day for lack of capital. If it is, members of the capitalist class stand condemned as the greatest treason-mongers the country has ever known. If it is true, as is argued, that unemployment is rampant because of lack of capital, then you stand condemned for having loaned to the Germans £12,000,000, and you stand condemned for having loaned to the Greeks £6,000,000. The only reason you did lend that capital was because you could get your 7½ per cent. In the money that has been invested in that particular loan, £50,000 will bring income to the one who invested it of over £2,000 a year, and now you are going to relieve him of the taxation that he otherwise would have borne.
I want to enter my protest against these proposals because, combined with them, you are proposing to increase the taxation of the miner. The miners to-day
are, in many instances, living on 28s. a week. You are going to increase the taxation on them by your proposal by 4d. per week. They are starving already. You are going, in the interest of the class to which you belong, to ask them to accept deductions in wages. Wages to-day are only 9s. 4d. per day. At the same time, you are going to reduce taxation to those already receiving £6 a day, because the Super-tax payers are receiving £6 a day income as a minimum. For these reasons I enter my protest against those proposals. I am not sorry you have done this. You have only justified all we have said at the last election. We will be justified in going to the country and saying you are the rich man's party. Robbing the rich at the expense of the poor. [Laughter.] Sometimes slips do happen, and the slip you have made on this occasion, in robbing the poor to make the rich richer and robbing the poor because they are poor, will give us scores of seats at the next election.

Sir H. CROFT: I only want to intervene for a few moments. I keep on finding myself getting more and more in agreement with some of the more outspoken and extreme members of the party above the Gangway. The last speaker, I think, did very great justice in calling attention to the fact that very large sums of money had been invested in Germany, Greece, Hungary and other countries while there is distress in this country. There is a great deal to be said for what he has mentioned. In these days, when we should be thinking by day and dreaming by night how we are going to cure the unemployment problem, there is a good deal in what the hon. Member said that is worthy of the notice of the House. Referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead), here again I am rather inclined to share his view. I am not at all sure that if you took a ballot of all those who are included in the net of Super-tax and Death Duties in this House that you would not find a very considerable majority who would sooner continue to pay Super-tax rather than have this great increased burden put upon Death Duties. I presume the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to try to free as much liquid money for spending at once in those difficult times. That is the only justification for it. If I
had a free vote on this question, I would say it is far preferable to continue to pay this Super-tax rather than to indulge in a capital levy at death, as is proposed with the increased Death Duties
There is one point which I think hon. Members of the Opposition have forgotten all through this discussion, and that is that it must be a help to the recovery of this country that you should reduce taxation all round. I remember that at the time of the great People's Budget, when that Budget was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—none of us understood at the time that the title meant that the people would suffer from it—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) laid down this principle that all taxes imposed were ultimately borne by the working classes. When you come to work that out it must obviously be true. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees his way to reduce taxation in any form it must ultimately be for the benefit of industry and for the workers in industry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was twitted by hon. Members above the Gangway with the fact that this money, to be remitted to the Super-tax payer, is money that is really wanted for industry. That is as I understood it. But the whole of this remission of Super-tax, so far as I know, will, in the case of any thrifty, cautious person, and must go towards insurance against the increased Death Duties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer so unwisely, in my opinion, is imposing. I think, that is, and must be true. His only object, as I said before, appears to be to try to bring as much money in to spend in the country at the present time. I imagine that is why he has taken this course of increasing the Death Duties and of allowing money immediately to circulate more quickly by the remission of taxation. If that is so, I hope it will have its effect. But I say once more, that I believe that if there was a free vote of those who are in the position of having to pay Super-tax and Death Duties that they would, I am convinced, by a large majority, say that they would sooner the Budget should stay as it was last year rather than change as it has this year.

Mr. BROAD: The contention put forward by so many hon. Members that the Super-tax payer is a poor, very hard bit individual, and that because he is so hard hit the industry of this country is in a very bad condition, is one that, I think, cannot be sustained nor can the proposed reduction of the Super-tax; and it has its answer in the last Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If it were not for this Report, I might even be induced to believe that it was a fact that the Super-tax payer is very hard hit indeed. Let me take these figures. Super-tax for the last four years has been paid on an income of £2,000 a year. I take the year 1920–21. I find that on the basis given that the total amount paid for Super-tax was £55,618,000 during that period. Since then we have had a very bad time with trade, and the workers' wages have been reduced to a very great extent. The purchasing power of money has altered considerably, and yet these poor, hard hit Super-tax payers, taking the same basis of taxation as before, £2,000 a year, have paid, or have to pay £61,746,000, which is a very substantial increase indeed. When I hear, as it appears to me, the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) that this extra money, in the hands of the wealthy, would enable them to buy things and so set people to work, I think of the old maxim, "That it is the luxury of the rich that provides work for the poor." That is not sound doctrine. It is the low standard of living of the poor that allows the luxury of the rich.
When I hear hon. Members who are engaged in industry, whether coal, iron, or anything else, talking about bad trade and how trade is being lost all round, I ask myself how is it that the national income, according to the returns of Income Tax payers and Super-tax payers, is increasing year by year, and I further ask myself: is there not some connection between the two? Is it not a fact that the dead-weight debt of the credit holders of this country, who have a mortgage on the life and labour of the country, is crushing the life out of our industry and out of our workers? Let me take other figures from these Returns of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I find that the total income on which tax was paid in 1920–21 was £2,661,000,000 and in the present £2,300,000,000. This would
appear to be a decline of over £300,000,000 on the total income of the Income Tax payer. There is a sub-division in an earlier column which shows what proportion of that total Income Tax was paid by the wage earners. I find that in the year 1920 there was £825,000,000 of taxable income of the wage earners. In the last year for which we have the figures the figure was £300,000,000, showing a reduction in the wage earners' income of £500,000,000. The wages of the wage earners have declined. The incomes of other people have got bigger, and this in a time of profound trade depression! Yet we are told we must seek fresh markets, and that we must have lower wages and longer hours of work. I am wondering whether, perhaps, the great cause of the decline in our industry and the fact that so many of our industrial businesses cannot be worked at their full efficiency and, therefore, find the cost of production greater than it might otherwise be, is not due to the fact that we have largely destroyed our home market by the reduction of the wages of the workers. This is after all the prime market that we have. We could see the thing coming in the year 1919, when the Conservative policy of deflation by the Government of that time, in conjunction with the big bankers, set about bringing down prices and bringing about unemployment deliberately to bring wages down first and foremost, so that prices could be brought down. When that policy had been in operation about 12 months we had close upon 2,500,000 unemployed in this country and the present Prime Minister—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting a very long way from the matter before the House. I would ask him to keep to the Amendment.

Mr. BROAD: It has been argued, Mr. Speaker, that the remission of the Supertax will give an impetus to industry, and I was submitting as an alternative to this policy that of increasing the purchasing power of the people generally. I was just saying what the present depression in and decline of our industry was due to. I should like to finish, if I might, just the one point, and I should like to show that at the time when there was 2½ millions of unemployed in the country us a result of the policy then in operation, that the present Prime Minister went to Liverpool to meet Mr. Harvey, the repre-
sentative of the United States. In a public speech he congratulated the country on the fall of wages. He said:
The wages concessions are generally speaking being made very satisfactorily. It has been a difficult thing, but the fall of wages has come along very well.
It is not by the relief of the great Super-tax payers, but by restoring the purchasing power of our people that the industry of this country is going to recover. If our businesses are to be placed on a more efficient basis, with, a reduction of the cost of manufacture, that will not be done by a reduction of the home market, but by increasing the purchasing power of our people.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to point out to the House that it is my desire, as I indicated at the beginning of the proceedings, to select an Amendment on Clause 22 and an Amendment on the Schedule, but it will not be possible to do that unless the House be ready to make some progress.

Captain BENN: May I point out to you, Sir, when you are making up your mind as to the admission of the Amendment on Clause 22, which one of my hon. Friends will move and many of us desire to discuss, that we ourselves have contributed only two speeches to this Debate, and that our contribution is finished. I hope, therefore, you will not allow our Amendment to suffer on account of anything that may happen.

Mr. SPEAKER: It was a request that came to me from both parts of the Opposition to have a discussion on Clause 22, and I hope the House will allow me now to put the question.

Mr. DALTON: On the question of the allocation of time, may I point out to you, Sir, that many of us on these benches, as is indicated by the large number of those who have risen to speak, regard this as being the most important Clause of the whole Finance Bill, and although we are not anxious to be parties to any violation of any agreement that may have been reached, I do submit that we ought to have a very large proportion of the time allotted to the discussion of this particular Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not rise until the discussion had occupied twice the length of time that was understood when the representatives of the hon. Member were discussing it with me. It was suggested
that this would take an hour, and the discussion has now been going for mere than two hours. That is the reason why I ask the House to allow me to put the Question now.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 139.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[9.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
England, Colonel A.
Lougher, L.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lumley, L. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Astor Viscountess
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.


Atholl Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Barnett Major Sir Richard
Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fleming, D. P.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Merriman, F. B.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forrest, W.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Berry, Sir George
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bethell, A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Moles, Thomas


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Blundell, F. N.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brass, Captain W.
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grant, J. A.
Murchison, C. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Briscoe, Richard George
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Neville, R. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristrol, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Buckingham, Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bullock, Captain M.
Hanbury, C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Burman, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Campbell, E. T.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cassels, J. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Perring, William George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pielou, D. P.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Haslam, Henry C.
Pilcher, G.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Preston, William


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ramsden, E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Clarry, Reginald George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Clayton, G. C.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, S. (York, N. R-,Scar. & Wh'by)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remer, J. R.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Cope, Major William
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ropner, Major L.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Crook, C. W.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Capt W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Storry Deans, R.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Waddington, R.
Womersley, W. J.


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Templeton, W. P.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tinne, J. A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Major Hennessy and Captain Mar-


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
gesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Broad, F. A.
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windson Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ritson, J.
Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir R.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Hutchison.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

CLAUSE 15.—(Allowances in respect of earned income and allowances from total income of persons of age of 65 years.)

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 14, after the word "or," to insert the words "in the case of a married man."
This is really only a drafting Amendment, intended to make the meaning of Sub-section 2 more clear.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government have no objection to the insertion of those words.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Estate Duty payable in respect of agricultural property to be charged in part on agricultural value at rate under Finance Act, 1919.)

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
On these benches we have pleaded with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for various concessions for different classes of taxpayers on the1 different Clauses, and although we have elicited sympathy in some cases, the right hon. Gentleman has argued that there were practical difficulties preventing him from making the concessions we have asked for. We have been lectured by hon. Members opposite, and particularly by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who has told us that we are not capable of taking what he calls the community view, and he says that we are too much concerned for individuals and individual classes. That is the kind of lecture to which we have listened, and yet I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for York will go into the Lobby in support of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote half of his surplus to redressing an anomaly which only applies to a few thousand people in these islands.
10.0 P.M.
The case of agricultural property has been singled out for this preferential treatment. The arguments: with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to defend these proposals have not only been slight in substance but few in number. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that in Debate as in war the best defence is attack. He has not wasted much time defending his proposals but he has delighted the House with pyrotechnical displays of wit and eloquence. I find that there are only two arguments he has used in support of these proposals, and he has rung the changes on these two arguments very frequently. His first argument has been that the cost of the transfer and the sale of land to meet the Death Duties is higher than the cost of the sale and transfer of shams. The second argument is that the tax will do good to the agricultural industry as a whole by exempting this particular class from the increase in the Death Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeated in his last speech the comparison he used in his first speech, and he has compared the case of the landlord with the case of the man who owns stocks and shares. It is quite obvious that the man who owns wholly stocks and shares is in a much more and exceptionally favourable position, and the right
hon. Gentleman is not having much regard for the hard case of the man who owns the small shop or a small business. That is a case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not even attempted to meet. You must redress this anomaly all round and not simply do it in the case of a few favoured individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to redress this anomaly, why does he not do it in some general way and address himself to this particular problem? There was an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ashford (Major Steel) which attempted to deal with this problem, and I am sorry this question has not been discussed more from that point of view, although you would certainly have had to bring in the case of the shopkeeper, instead of adopting these proposals for the general exemption of a particular class from the new taxation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, and some hon. Members who support him, have also laid stress upon the effect of this proposal upon industry. The effect of the Budget as a whole, in my opinion, will be to lighten the burden on the ownership of land, and increase the burdens of those who are cultivating the land and working on it producing food. The tenant farmers and the occupying owners will have their burdens increased to the extent of the amount of capital which they put into the soil. The curse of British agriculture at the present time is their farming, and the effect of the Chancellor's proposals must be to encourage that tendency, because the more capital the man puts into the actual tenant interest in a farm, the higher will be the tax for Death Duties. These proposals do nothing for the tenant farmer, and very little for the occupying owner. The more they sink in capital improvements, the more they will have to pay in Death Duties, and the Chancellor is spending £500,000 of the taxpayers' money to increase the amount of capita] in the agricultural industry without obtaining any guarantee that his object will be attained. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is true that invariably when an estate changes hands, capital is going out of the industry. After all, landlords can be
divided, roughly, into two classes. In the one case, there is the landlord with external resources, or with his estate not mortgaged, and who can put mortgages on his estate or realise his external resources. There is also the man who has no such external resources, and whose estates are heavily mortgaged. He is the man who is hard hit, and has to realise his estate to pay, but he is just the man who is unable, on the existing scale of Death Duties, and will be in no better position to meet his obligations after the Budget is passed than he was before. He will have to realise his estate, and it is quite possible that when he does, it will be bought by a man who will have more capital, and will be able to put more into the estate than the present impoverished owner.
Even if that were not the case, there is no guarantee that this money he would gain by exemption from the higher scale of Death Duties would be put into agriculture. I know of estates in the North of Scotland bought purely for sporting purposes. I certainly know two cases, and I think I am pretty correct in saying I know three cases in which the new owners of these estates are planting pheasant covers on agricultural land, to the detriment of that particular land and of the whole agricultural land around. Those people will benefit to exactly the same extent as the good landlord who is putting money into the agricultural development of his estate. The right hon. Gentleman said that grouse moors and deer forests did not come under this scheme. But I can see no reason why grouse moors, if they are being used for grazing, should be treated differently from other pasture land, for sport and grazing can be carried on together without doing each other any harm. Where sport does harm to agriculture is where it is carried on on agricultural land, when such land is resumed for planting covers, and the pheasants go out to ravage the farmers' crops. Yet the owner of such an estate will get just as much benefit as the man who is using his capital in agriculture.
It is certain this £500,000 will have to be found from the pockets of other taxpayers. No one can say how much of that is going into agricultural development. There was an
Amendment put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Ashford and others which would have had the effect of exempting from Death Duty charges the maintenance and equipment of a farm on an estate. I do not say that in the form in which it was put down it was entirely unobjectionable, but, at any rate, it was a sensible and an intelligent proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has rejected that sensible and intelligent proposal put down by certain hon. Members behind him, and has submitted to the guidance of the most reactionary, and, if I may say so without offence, the least enlightened section of his party. They have been alarmed and infuriated by what they regard as the neglect of their interests when he introduced the Budget. They expected him rather to lighten their burdens than to increase them.
It is because I believe this Clause will create more serious anomalies than those it sets out to redress; because it fails to do justice as between individual taxpayers; because it does nothing for the tenant farmer, and very little for the occupying owner, and therefore positively discourages high farming, which is the great hope of British agriculture; because there is no guarantee that the expenditure of this £500,000 will go to the industry which the Chancellor hopes to benefit; and because nobody will rejoice, unless perhaps a few short-sighted and elderly landowners, that I move the rejection of this Clause.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
May I ask the House to give their attention to what is the real object of this Clause? It asks the House to exempt one class of property from an increase of Death Duties. As the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has pointed out, the number of persons who. are to be thus privileged at the expense of the rest of the community is extremely small. To-day some 256 persons own no less than one-quarter of the entire land of England and Wales, which contains a population of some 45,000,000 inhabitants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considers, apparently, it is public policy to go out of his way to exempt 256 people, amongst others, who are almost invariably well-to-do, from taxation which has to be made up by the rest of the 45,000,000 inhabitants.
Something has been said, in the course of the Debate on the Super-tax, as to the iniquity of relieving small numbers of taxpayers who have substantial incomes, while so many people on the lower rungs of the social ladder are receiving no relief at all. This Clause carries this policy of the relief of special classes, who do not need relief, to an extreme point. Who are the persons who are going to benefit specially? There is, for instance, the Duke of Sutherland, who is the owner of something like 1,000,000 acres; there is the Duke of Buccleuch, with 400,000 acres; the Duke of Richmond with 286,000; the Duke of Devonshire with 186,000. These are the persons, amongst others, for whom, or for whose descendants, this exemption is specially designed. I submit that Members on the Conservative side cannot with any sense justice defend this special relief in view of the general condition of the country.
Again, there is the very great danger that this special kind of exemption for one or two classes connected with land is going to become more and more a settled policy of the present Government. Already we have seen during the last 20 or 30 years how special treatment has been provided in the matter of agricultural rates, differentiating between the small occupier and the larger occupier of agricultural land, and piling on to the small occupier—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]— and the village shopkeeper, the village blacksmith and the village publican the rates that ought to be borne by the land. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward—it is quite true to say that he had to be pushed into it, because in his first draft Bill there was no provision for this exemption, but pressure from his friends reminded him that he was too much neglecting their interests— and his friends once more are being looked after. I have indicated to what a very small class of the community this relief will go at the expense of the remainder. For instance, in 1922–23, some 363 persons died and left estates valued at £36,300,000, and, of this £36,300,000, no less than £14,600,000 was the value of land. At 5 per cent., that itself—

Mr. S. ROBERTS: Is that agricultural land?

Mr. RILEY: No, I do not say that, but I suppose some of it is agricultural land, and to that extent their descendants are going to reap the benefit. As has beer, said already by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, one could understand some reason for this special kind of relief if it were going to be translated into extra industry, extra cultivation, and better farming; but no argument has been put forward to show, and there is no evidence, that a single penny of this relief will go to improve farming at all. The only substantial argument put forward in defence of this special exemption was that used by the Financial Secretary the other day, that, unless landed agricultural estates are relieved of increasing taxation of this kind, the result will be that the estates will be broken up. In view of the failure, from an agricultural point of view, of large estates, it is time that they were broken up. There is no country in Europe, I might say in the world, of this size, with estates so large as are found here, and there is no country in Europe where agriculture has gone back as it has in this country. There is no country in Europe where the agricultural population has diminished as it has done in this country, and if landlordism, as exemplified by large estates, is not able to carry on the agricultural industry so as to enable the rural population to remain prosperous, and to extend its prosperity, it will be a good thing for the country when agricultural estates are broken up and small holdings take their place.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We had a long afternoon's Debate on this Clause, and I think all the arguments which represent the points of view of various sections were very fully employed on that occasion. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment reminded us, he himself has already addressed the House twice on the same subject, and on each occasion he has not felt called upon to restrain himself from doing full justice to the topic. I have no doubt others who will take part in the Debate will be able to say the same. The issue is not really a very great one and, apart from the opportunities of using the ordinary arguments of prejudice, it is not really a very important one. The real argument which justifies the Amendment which I
moved, and which is now being reported to the House, was not furnished from these benches at all. If I or any of my hon. Friends sitting here had used it, it would have been regarded as a grotesque exaggeration. It would have been received with a sigh or a gasp of derision from the benches opposite. The real argument for this relief was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He said the existing class of owners of agricultural land are doomed. They are being shattered by taxation. He proved effectively that in two generations they would be completely swept away. They were being exterminated and obliterated and wiped off the face of the earth as the result of the depression which has become a feature in our national life. The whole of the latter part of his argument was, as they were going to be ruined, why not give them a parting kick? Why withdraw the particular application of this increased duty from these people? They are going downhill, anyhow. They are bound to perish. Why should you give them any relief?
I have never stated the argument in those terms. I do not think it is true. I think the owners of agricultural property are still discharging and will stall discharge an invaluable and important task. I think their task is undoubtedly that of financing farming operations and the farmer by capital obtained at a far lower rate of interest than it could be provided by the State or through the ordinary financial agencies. They do that because of old associations, because of amenities which are connected with the ownership of land, and such as is that foundation it is the only one which at present exists for a very great part of our rural life. It would be very hard to accelerate the process, in the words of the Leader of the Liberal party in this House, of the liquidation of this class. I am not quoting his actual words. It would be very unwise to do that, when you have not at your hands any other machinery for immediately replacing them in anything like the same satisfactory manner. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is a member of a small party, numerically, but he has a great leader, and I am surprised that he has not weighed more carefully the arguments which his leader used, that the
agricultural class were being swept away and shattered by the existing taxation.
I have not set out to shatter anybody or to sweep anybody away. On the contary, this Budget about which so many people have said critical things is not a Bill of that sort. It is a Measure, a combination of Measures, animated throughout by benevolent intentions. It is the realisation of that truth which has so notably eased its passage through the House. The more it has been understood and the more it has been discussed the better its progress has been. I do not feel that I am exposed to any criticism in having relieved the owners of purely agricultural property, property having only an agricultural value, from an extra burden, in view of the fact that the Leader of the Liberal party in this House has pointed out how excessively hard is the lot of these people under the conditions of modern taxation.
I am told that it is an afterthought on the original scheme of the Budget. No Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been asked to discriminate exactly between his first thought and his afterthought, and nobody has any right to insist that it is an afterthought unless they can prove that it is so. I thought that it would be better to relieve the Super-tax payer and to transfer the same burden to the Death Duties, but I also knew perfectly well that the class which would be most hardly affected by the increased Death Duties would be the owners of agricultural property. From the very outset I bore in mind that a representation could be addressed to me upon that subject, and that that was a case which ought to be met in the ordinary course of the discussion which takes place in the long and complicated passage of a Finance Bill through Parliament. Therefore, at the proper time we have made this very modest and reasonable Amendment, which confers no advantage on the agricultural class, but leaves them exposed to all those devastating consequences on which the leader of the Liberal party dwelt. It simply relieves me from the burden of responsibility of laying an additional aggravation upon a situation already almost intolerable, as we have been assured from the party opposite.
I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness has made a great study of the land. He has been in the position
to do so, and certainly he occupies a very peculiar position in this House when he stands up as the violent opponent of any concession of any kind to landlords or of any mitigation of the rigorous treatment of landlords. I would say seriously to him that it would be very unwise for us, in the absence of some general policy for dealing with the whole of our rural position, to add at this moment an extra burden upon agricultural land. The dislocation caused in the countryside when these splendid estates have to be broken up on paying Death Duties is very serious and far reaching, and far exceeds the bounds of ordinary liquidation. It produces not merely economic but social complications. Large numbers of people are affected. They are a fertile source of wages. There is no doubt that it is the cause of much trouble when land has to be sold and the tenant is forced into the position either of having to produce the capital which he cannot readily command to purchase his holding or of leaving a site which has been his home for many years to see it occupied by some stranger.
That is a matter which is no real advantage to any individual or class. Our law proceeds on a certain basis, and this one class has been hit above all other classes in the community. New classes have come to take its place, and this one class has lost its relative position in the State. That hon. Gentlemen should attack me because in the course of this Budget I have declined on this occasion to add to the burdens of this class is much to be regretted. I ask the House to renew upon the Report the decision already come to in Committee, and to reject the proposal which has been made to add to the burdens upon agricultural land which already, in the opinion of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs have attained crushing and destructive dimensions.

Mr. DALTON: When we leave aside the sentimental rhetoric and the crocodile tears shed over the owners of agricultural land, who have been already replaced, the Chancellor has told us, by a new class of men, many of whom have made large profits in industry and spent some of them in acquiring agricultural land, as he has told us largely for its amenities, we find that the proposal of the Chancellor does differentiate in favour
of the better to do landlords as against the landlord who is more hardly pressed. The effect of the Clause is to give relief to estates, as compared with what they would have to pay under the scale appropriate to other property passing at death, of between £12,500 and £1,000,000. The £12,500 is net. In other words, the poor landlord about whom fairy tales are told, who goes through life burdened with debts and mortgages and other incum-brances, in most cases will not come in for any relief at all. All these incum-brances, debts and mortgages are deducted from the value of the estate before it is subject to Estate Duty, and it is only on those who have £12,500 net that this relief operates.
Furthermore, in many cases the owners of agricultural land are also the owners of considerable quantities of other wealth. It is quite a mistake to suggest that the greater part of the agricultural land of the country is held by people who own nothing else. In many cases it is a mere side-show to the ownership of large quantities of stocks and shares. In these particular cases what is happening is that a further dole is being given, in addition to those conferred by other Clauses of the Budget, to the extent of £500,000 a year, to a class of people who have no special claim to receive it on the grounds of poverty. I could have understood the proposal much more easily if it had applied to the smaller estates as well as to the larger. It applies only to estates of £12,500 and upwards.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Because those estates over £12,500 are the only ones to which the new burdens apply.

Mr. DALTON: The arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described is a futile arrangement if it is to benefit the poorer landlord as distinguished from the richer. The Financial Secretary said on the last Amendment, "We have done our best." I then said it was a poor best. This is a poor best, too, if it is designed to carry out the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. This proposal to give special treatment to agricultural land, compared with other forms of property, is a reversal of the practice since Sir William Harcourt's Budget of 1894, which for the first time swept real property into line, so far as the Death Duties were concerned. It is evident
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has acquired what used to be called in those days "landed ideas." Sir William Harcourt had a brother who owned land. He protested against the 1894 Budget and told Sir William that he had no landed ideas. The Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, "You have the land and you may leave the ideas to me." The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this case has reverted to the older mentality of the conductors of our finance, and has acquired a special tenderness for the interests of agricultural land.
I shall not develop the point already made, that this is not the only inducement which agricultural land owners have received to continue in allegiance to the Conservative party. In addition to this particular dole, which excites great enthusiasm in many quarters on the other side—I believe it is even more highly prized than the Super-tax dole—agricultural rates have been reduced for the benefit of landlords who in many cases are perfectly well able to pay, and Income Tax and Super-tax reductions have been thrown into their laps. I am glad to have the opportunity of recording my protest against this reactionary, and, in some respects, revolutionary proposal, reverting to an earlier and much less enlightened time, and I hope the day is not far distant when we shall be in a position to reverse this step, which is taken entirely in the wrong direction.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, placing his hand on his heart, boasted about his benevolent intentions. Our complaint is that he manifests his benevolent intentions to such a restricted class. I was interested to hear him say, in interrupting the last speaker, that any benefit which might conceivably be conferred on agriculture by

this proposal would be confined to those estates which were worth more than £12,500. The truth of the matter is that this relief is a concession to those wealthy landlords who have been squealing ever since the War about the breaking up of their estates. I know of no more unbecoming feature of English life since the War than the fact that these dukes and large landlords have protested against the burden of taxation more than any other class in the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had said that agriculturists were labouring under heavy burdens. It is perfectly true that they are, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was referring to the small farmers. I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but there happened to be lying in front of me a copy of "Whitaker's Almanac," and it occurred to me that it might contain some figures relevant to this Debate. I find from it that the number of farms in this country under 300 acres is 411,000 and the number above 300 acres is only 2,000 or 3,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"!] I am well aware that these facts are distasteful to hon. Members opposite but that is no reason why they should not be heard. This boasted benevolence is confined to about 2,000 people while 411,000 small agriculturists are not deriving one penny of benefit. If this Clause is brought in on the supposition that it is going to benefit agriculture, I say that it is a deliberate sham and ought to be rejected by the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 145.

Division No. 205.
AYES.
[10.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Berry, Sir George
Buckingham, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Bethell, A.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bullock, Captain M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burman, J. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Blundell, F. N.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Astor, Viscountess
Boothby, R. J. G.
Campbell, E. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cassels, J. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Briggs, J. Harold
Chapman, Sir S.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Briscoe, Richard George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Christie, J. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Clary, Reginald George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R, Scar. & Wh'by)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Remer, J. R.


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ropner, Major L.


Crook, C. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jacob, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jephcott, A. R.
Savery, S. S.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


England, Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lougher, L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Storry Deans, R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Falls, Sir Charles F.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McLean, Major A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Fielden, E. B.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fleming, D. P.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Forestier-Walker, L.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Forrest, W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Templeton W. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Merriman, F. B.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gates, Percy
Moles, Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Waddington, R.


Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Grant, J. A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Murchison, C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Gretton, Colonel John
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Neville, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristrol, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Oakley, T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hanbury, C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Womersley, W. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Harland, A.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wood E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Sir Kinnsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perring William George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hawke, John Anthony
Pielou, D. P.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.



Power, Sir John Cecil



Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, William
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Colonel Gibbs.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barnes, A.
Briant, Frank


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barr, J.
Broad, F. A.


Ammon, Charles George
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Bromley, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Buchanan, G.




Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Taylor, R. A.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow).


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Thurtle, E.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Warne, G. H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hayes, John Henry
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, w. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Sir R. Hutchison and Captain


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Garro-Jones.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

CLAUSE 27.—(Construction, short title, application and repeal.)

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 18, line 19, to leave out the word "enactments ", and to insert instead thereof the word "enactment."
This, and the following Amendment, are mere verbal Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER: I might explain to the House that it is a matter of grammar.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 20, leave out the word "are," and insert instead thereof the word "is."— [Mr. Guinness.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that it is the desire to have a short general discussion on the Silk Schedule on the first Amendment on the Paper—to leave out Part I—and, in addition, I am anxious to reserve an opportunity for an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) which deals with the aggre-
gate of the values of all the components. It has been represented to me that that is a special point and should have some attention. So I hope that will not be covered in the discussion previously taken.

Captain W. BENN: Might I ask you about discussing the Second Schedule? You will observe the Part II of the Schedule deals with drawbacks and the question of duties. I presume we shall be able to discuss that on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new Schedule.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be in Order. That rather takes away from what I understood was desired to be raised on Part I of the Schedule.

Captain BENN: I beg to move to leave out Part I.
We have now got to the Second Schedule, which is really the operative part of this Silk Duty. I suppose, although I do not know what manuscript Amendments the Financial Secretary may be drafting of a financial or
any other sort, we may take it that for the time being this is the final proposal of the Government with regard to silk. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the usual daily crop of Amendments on the Order Paper, one need not deal in detail with the new points which have arisen. Therefore, my observations shall be more of a general character in connection with the Schedule which we are discussing, and in order that the discussion may be order I propose to move to leave out Part I of the Schedule. I need not repeat the arguments that have been raised in earlier Debates except to invite the Financial Secretary, or, it may be, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, when he comes later to intervene, to explain to us clearly what it was that induced him to sacrifice £900,000 of revenue in a full year in order to turn a revenue tax into a protective tax. We have never had an answer to that question. I think we are certainly entitled to an answer before we finally part with this Bill, as we may do to-night. That is a general question. I would like to ask on a particular point now—and I will not take up the time of the House at any great length. I refer to page 22 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) will be interested, I feel sure, in what I have to say on this point. At the head of page 22 we read:
any other articles made wholly or in part of artificial silk.
11.0 P.M.
We understood that when this tax was introduced it was a Silk Tax. It was proposed and urged always as a Silk Tax. It was defended as a Silk Tax. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has been engaged for years to my knowledge in securing a protective tax on silk. I want to say a word about made-up articles It is quite possible that from 1st July there will be involved considerable alteration in the trade of many exporters from all over the world to this country. It is quite possible that they may make a pool and send word to those concerned not to put a trace of silk into the goods, forwarded otherwise they will have a heavy tax to pay. On the other hand it is possible that the articles we receive from abroad may have a considerable element of silk in them, some larger some smaller, and if that occurs
then I say that this part of the tariff on page 22 which levies an import duty on the goods is a shameless departure on the part of the Government from the undertaking given at the election not to impose a general tariff. After all, what does it mean? It means that any article with a trace of silk is considered as dutiable. It has been said that the Chancellor has based himself largely on the experience of the United States. They have worked a Silk Tax there, and if they can do it in the United States, we can do it. But when we pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the United States and elsewhere articles with less than 5 per cent. of silk content came in free he would not adopt the suggestion. He will not adopt it, on the ground, which I am sure, without offence, and certainly without any departure from the truth, I can call the very flimsy ground, that 1 per cent., or a half of 1 per cent., or a tenth of 1 per cent., of silk in the article will adversely affect the interests of the home manufacturer who has got to pay Excise Duty on this microscopical quantity of silk. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that these are not mere debating points, but that they are points which are exercising the minds of traders. If a small quantity of silk is left in the article, as is the case to-day, what happens? In the case of myriads of articles—umbrellas, clothing, bags, and the hundreds and hundreds of things one can see in the warehouses in Cheapside— the Chancellor is going to charge an import duty of 2 per cent. not on the silk, which we give him leave to tax, but on the total value of the article—a minimum of 2 per cent. and a maximum of 33 per cent. To show that I am not giving fantastic examples, I will give the names of the firms who are interested in the matter, and who have supplied me, through the London Chamber of Commerce, with the particulars. I have no special interest in the merchant, but I have a special interest in the welfare of the consumer, and I am well aware that if this charge is put on it will be passed on by the merchant to the consumer, and it is in the interest of the consumer as a citizen that we are entitled to speak in this House.
Take the case of shoes. Under the Schedule the Chancellor is levying a duty of 2 per cent. on the value of shoes. I
have a letter, which was sent to the London Chamber of Commerce, signed by the Saxone Shoe Company, Upsons, Limited, Messrs. Lilley and Skinner and the London Shoe Company. These people import shoes. [Interruption.] Yes, they are committing the crime of importing foreign goods, which is the way in which we receive payment for our exports. I think it is about time that a nation of shopkeepers ceased to regard it as a crime to carry on foreign trade. These people import. Let us have it out. They are merchants importing foreign goods. Now the worst is known. These four firms state they import shoes, and the average value is 16s. a pair, and the value of the silk in the shoe is not more than one-eighth to one-quarter per cent. of the article. The shoes would be taxed at 2 per cent., say 4d., which may represent 6d. or even 1s. when it comes to the retail price in the shop. What leave has the House of Commons given the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a duty of 6d. or 1s. on a pair of shoes from abroad? People make a great mistake if they think this is some high-falutin' argument about silk. It is an argument about every article of imported clothing, and many other articles as well. Take the case of artificial silk stockings —artificial silk, not real silt. The difference between the Excise Duty and the importer's duty is 2s. 10d. That is to say that, per dozen, there is that amount of Protection, which means to say that the home manufacturer will raise his price in accordance with the Customs Duty, and the consumer will pay so much more for his stockings.

Mr. REMER: Is it 2s. 10d. per dozen?

Captain BENN: I will give the hon. Member the full particulars. The retail price is 1s. 11d. a pair or 23s. per dozen; the weight of artificial silk in them is seven ounces per dozen valued at 2s. 6d. per dozen, and the Excise Duty per dozen is 6d. The 2s. 10d. per dozen is the measure of the protection. Some hon. Members will be surprised to learn that this is not a Silk Duty but a general tariff on clothing which happens to have a trace of silk in it. Then there is the case of Fred W. Millington, of Manchester. These people import an article known as men's cotton fleece vests and pants for working men's wear. They are
ordered from the United States and as the winter is coming on the sale of these goods begins about this time. By the time these goods are delivered there will be a demand for winter clothes. What are the facts about these articles? This firm tell me that there is in these goods a thin braid and one little trace of silk, the proportion being about one-twentieth of 1 per cent. That is the amount of silk in these particular articles, which are of the commonest use by the poorest class of consumer. This consignment of goods from America with one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of silk in them is going to be taxed 2 per cent. on the value of the article. The whole suit, which may cost 10s., may suffer a tax when it gets to the retail shop of 6d. I want hon. Members opposite to understand that under the guise of a tax on luxuries our working people are paying 4d. or 6d. extra on the ordinary commodities they wear. I consulted people in the trade, and I find it amounts to 2d. on the c.i.f. price and 4d. or 6d. on the retail price. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that is exaggerated, I will make it 4d. It is a speculative figure, but that does represent taxes on workmen's clothing I have not the least doubt.
That is the main burden of the charge against this part of the Schedule. The Financial Secretary said we must tax on the value of the article. Why not tax the silk content of the article? The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer. I know he thinks his perfect answer is going to be, "We cannot tell when an article made up like that comes, what the silk content is—it is too complicated." When the exporter applies for a drawback he has to find out somehow what the silk content is. Yet the Financial Secretary cannot find it out for the purpose of getting rid of this objectionable part of the Schedule. I am certain if these Schedules could have been debated in the light of day, when the Debates were reported, the serious objections that would have been raised would have destroyed the whole proposal. I do not think the Treasury would have dared to thrust this thing through if they understood the chaos it would involve and the hardship upon poor consumers of a number of articles. Whether anything can be done at this stage beyond amending the
grammar of the Bill, I do not know. I suppose not, but I think anyone would be lacking in his duty if he did not make, as I make, an emphatic protest against the latter part of this Schedule.

Mr. GUINNESS: The House has already had to-day one fairly full discussion on the Silk Duty, and I do not think at this hour it will be the general desire that we should again traverse that very wide ground. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put two specific points which I think deserve an answer. He has asked why it is we sacrifice £900,000 of revenue as compared with the first estimate given in the Budget speech on the Silk Duties, and he has suggested that we have done so because we want to bring about not a revenue tax but one of naked Protection. If he will examine the two Schedules he will see there is no such deep and, from his point of view, vicious explanation of the change to be drawn. The reason of the possible decrease in revenue we now anticipate is that we have very much lightened the duty all round. In consultation with all sections of the trade, we have re-cast the grading of the various levels of import duties and excise duties, and we have sacrificed a considerable amount of revenue in bringing down the burden on artificial silk. By far the greater part of our remissions are on artificial silk. Concessions on real silk only amount to about £150,000 out of a total loss of £900,000.
It ill-becomes hon. Members opposite, who have been continually harping on the false issue that we are taxing the necessary clothes of the poor, to criticise us because we have met, to some extent, their criticism by reducing the yield we expect to get from the duties on artificial silk. Before I leave that, I should point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, quite apart from these arguments in favour of reducing the duty on artificial silk used specially by the poorer classes of the community, it was pointed out, by those with far closer experience of the silk trade as a whole, both real and artificial, than we can ever hope to rival, that, as originally proposed, the duties on artificial silk were of such a weight as to be likely to transfer the demand from
artificial silk to real silk. As we did not want to disturb the trade more than we could help, we tried, by means of turns, to compensate the home producer for any possible loss, and we have tried, in recasting these duties and lightening the burden on artificial silk, to prevent any unfair disturbance of the present distribution of demand as between the real and the artificial article. Those are the two main reasons that account for the changes which we have made in the Schedule relating to these duties. The other point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman again raised this evening, is that we are taxing made-up articles ad valorem and not on the specific basis. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew what my answer was going to be, because we had this matter out the other night. The answer is that it is the only basis on which you can tax these made-up articles. I am sorry to have to repeat it—

Captain BENN: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to page 24 of his Bill, where it is provided that a made-up article may claim drawback on the basis of the silk content as estimated by the Commissioners. If you can estimate the silk content for a drawback, why cannot you estimate the silk content for a duty?

Mr. GUINNESS: Those are British made-up articles, and there you have evidence, just as in the case of mixed textiles. You have the definite evidence of the manufacturer as to the amount of silk that went in; but you have not any evidence in the case of articles, of a widely divergent character, brought in in large quantities from abroad. With regard to the question as to how you are to tax these made-up articles except on an ad valorem basis, you would destroy them if you tried to apply specific duties by weight, because they would have to be dissolved into their component parts and their value would be destroyed.

Mr. MACKINDER: If it is possible to find out the quantity of silk in an exported tissue containing silk made from imported goods, is it not equally possible to find out the quantity of silk in the imported article?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, it is not, because in the one case you have the evidence of
the manufacturer in this country. He can support his statement by receipts for the duty he has paid, and he can show—it has all been worked out in very great detail— the exact silk that he used in the particular article for which he is getting a rebate.

Mr. MACKINDER: What becomes of his through ticket?

Mr. GUINNESS: The through ticket is an additional method of avoiding any grievance to this trade. Surely, the hon. Member, who has made very interesting contributions to our Debates, not, as he has several times told us, from the political point of view, but from his great interest in the textile industry, cannot grudge this industry a concession which they themselves have asked for, to facilitate the supply for foreign markets of these articles containing silk without having to lock up their capital in paying duty? I cannot understand the hon. Member's attitude in objecting to an arrangement of that kind. Let me come back to the point of this ad valorem duty. It is impossible to weigh the silk contents of these made-up goods, but it is quite easy to estimate the value of their component parts, and that is why we have been bound to have an ad valorem scale to arrive at the method of reckoning what duty shall be charged on the various values of goods.

Mr. MACKINDER: If it is impossible to find the amount of silk in the goods that are imported, how is it possible to distinguish between an article containing 5 per cent., an article containing 10 per cent., and an article containing more than 20 per cent.?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have fold the hon. Member, I should think for the tenth time, that we cannot tell the amount of silk in an article that is brought in made up, but we can tell the value, and I should have thought that was a perfectly simple distinction.

Mr. MACKINDER: The Schedule on page 22 gives different taxes for different percentages of silk in the made-up goods. The right hon. Gentleman says they cannot distinguish the percentages, yet they are making a scale of taxes for the various percentages. If it is impossible to distinguish the percentages, how can
you make the various scales for the varying percentages of silk in the goods?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is misrepresenting what the Schedule says. It does not charge according to the amount of the silk. It is charged according to the value of the silk. If he cannot appreciate the difference between amount and value it is not because I have not done my best to explain it.

Mr. MACKINDER: You cannot get the value unless you get the weight.

Mr. GUINNESS: Surely the hon. Member does not pretend that Customs officials are in the habit of weighing all these diverse articles which they have to value. When he decides what is a reasonable price to pay for a suit of clothes does he have it weighed? To come back to this ad valorem scale, it is true there are more or less arbitrary steps, but the method by which we have arrived at these steps is that in each case the top level of value covered by the step is equivalent to the maximum that would be paid if the silk were imported made up and were liable to a specific duty by weight, and the reason of that is quite simple. We do not want to give encouragement to import these goods made up rather than in their unmade-up form. We do not want to discourage the making-up industry in this country.

Captain BENN: That is to say the purpose of the arrangement is to protect the making-up trade in this country.

Mr. GUINNESS: No, it is not. It is to avoid protecting the making up trade in foreign countries. I can easily understand the Free Trade attitude of the hon. and gallant Member, but I cannot understand his new attitude of inverted Protection, protection for the foreigner as against the British manufacturer. The second point of the hon. and gallant Member was that it was not reasonable to charge a duty of 2 per cent. ad valorem where the silk ingredient was insignificant. If we do not do that, we should be giving inverted Protection to the foreigner, because the British producer in competition with the foreigner would be using duty-paid material. He could not claim any rebate. He would also have the handicap that he would have to face the loss by waste on the
duty-paid material, while the foreigner would be free. He would not have paid duty on his materials, nor would he have paid duty on silk which did not exist in the imported article which had been lost in the waste. That is the reason why we cannot limit our ad valorem scale to articles with a considerable content of taxable material. The foreigner can do that because he has no Excise Duty. We alone have this system of revenue duty with a countervailing Excise, and where you have that, if you are going to be fair to your own people, you must, even in the case of the most insignificant dutiable ingredient, insist that a corresponding duty should be paid by the foreigner. I do not think it would be fair to the House to pursue further all the details of the Schedule. We shall get to them on the various Government Amendments later on. I hope the House will let us come to a decision on the Schedule.

Mr. REID: The Financial Secretary spoke about protection for the foreign manufacturer. Some treatment of foreign tissue for the foreign market is carried on in my constituency, and the people who carry on that industry allege that a duty of 5s. 3d. and the drawback, which is in the second part of the Schedule, does give an advantage to the foreign manufacturer. These people have asked me and other hon. Members who represent the North of Ireland to put their views to the Government. At the end of last week a copy of a Bill was circulated in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will find that on silk tissue, wholly undischarged, the amount of duty is 4s. 4d. Previously it had been at a higher rate. I have received a letter from the gentleman who acted as negotiator on behalf of the other members of the trade, written on the 20th June, in which he said:
I have great pleasure in telling you that the Government have made a concession in the new Schedule, bringing in undischarged tissues at 4s. 4d. per pound instead of 5s. 3d. This meets our case, and removes the handicap under which we were suffering compared with the foreign manufacturer. So that you may consider our agitation at an end.
This morning, however, another Bill was circulated, to be substituted for the Bill
previously issued, and in that the duty on silk tissue undischarged is 5s. 3d. The complaint I make is that it is not fair to this House nor to Members of this House that the Government, in negotiation with a certain set of manufacturers, should circulate a copy of a Bill showing that the concession which these manufacturers asked for had been granted, that these people should stop their agitation, if I may call it so, cease their demand, or any attempt to negotiate further, on the ground that the concession has been granted. Then, when it is too late, another copy of the Bill is circulated in which the concession is withdrawn. I think it very difficult in these circumstances to justify what has happened, and it puts hon. Members of this House in a very false position in representing their constituents. We are entitled to ask for some explanation as to why this should be done. To my mind it is rather like what one might expect from a certain class of company promoter, but it does not seem to me the kind of thing that should be done. If a genuine mistake has been made, it seems to me that the Report stage of the Bill should be postponed, to enable negotiations to be completed.

Mr. HARRIS: The last speaker has made a most valuable last-moment contribution to the discussion. It shows the danger of juggling with taxes. When you try to make a scientific tax you are bound to have complications of this kind. If I mistake not, a great deal of the silk to which the hon. Member refers is imported from Japan and is printed in the North of Ireland. There is a large trade there in finishing imported Japanese silk and producing beautiful fabrics not only for the home market but for export. Another matter to which I would draw attention is the pitfalls from which the Government could not escape in trying to meet the difficulties with regard to made-up fabrics. We were told that the whole purpose of these duties was to produce revenue, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing the Budget emphasised his contention that free traders need not be troubled because these duties had been carefully worked out on an Excise as well as a Customs basis. I do not think that the Government are trying to do anything wrong in making this special arrangement with regard to
manufactured garments. I think that it is inevitable. I agree that it is impossible to separate out the value of the silk in made-up articles. I do not think that the custom house with all its ingenuity-could do it. What has happened is the inevitable result of tinkering with a great complex industry of this kind, but the result should be a warning to the Government against further experiments of this kind, because in trying to protect this industry or that they are disturbing the whole course of industry, and injuring not only the home trade and the consumer but also the export trade.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is only through the indulgence of the House that I can speak again, but, in reply to the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), I wish to explain what took place in connection with the schedule in reference to silk. It is true that negotiations had been going on as to the rate at which the particular class of imports should be taxed, and it was chiefly on the question of the discharged rate that the discussions took place. After the Bill left Committee, owing to a printer's error, a change was made, not in the discharged rate, but in the undischarged rate. The Government had nothing whatever to do with the change. It was a printer's error. It was brought to our notice by one of those who are interested, writing to thank the officials of the Board of Customs for having been good enough to make the change in response to the representations made. The mistake would, no doubt, have been discovered by the Parliamentary draughtsman, but it happened that this particular letter first drew attention to it. As it was a printer's error, it was put right, and the correction is in the new edition of the Bill. It had nothing whatever to do with the Government. We very much regret the mistake, but we could not avoid it.

Mr. J. HUDSON: The Financial Secretary cannot be allowed to get away with that explanation. The hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid) has certainly done a good service to his constituency, and I am sorry to think that other hon. Members representing constituencies which

are concerned have failed to raise this extremely important point, and get some modification of the Government's attitude. The Financial Secretary has made the debating point that an attempt is being made to protect the foreigner against his British competitors. What are the facts? Take the import of wool tissues into this country. They amount to 2½ million square yards per month. A great many of these tissues have no silk content at all. But suppose it were the case that all of them had some silk content? What is likely to happen as a result of this proposal? You are refusing to count goods that come into this country with less than 5 per cent. silk content as purely woollen goods. On the other hand, the foreigner in many cases does meet you in this matter. On the last occasion when I spoke I gave a list of the countries concerned. If you add up the total amount of woollen tissues exported, you find that they are 18½ million square yards per month. So the debating point of the Financial Secretary comes to this: that he is resisting the very simple proposal we have made, that the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by correspondence, and is doing so apparently in the interests of this 2½ million square yards of imports, and he is running the risk of making it difficult for Yorkshire manufacturers to export the 18½ million square yards that are sent monthly from this country. The Government are going to put a very serious obstacle in the way of our trade. I wish that the Financial Secretary had been pressed by Yorkshire and Lancashire Conservative Members in this matter. I state again that a large amount of responsibility for the obstacles that will be put in the way of trade will rest with Conservative Members opposite, who have absolutely betrayed the trading interests of their constituents.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of page 21, line 26, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 130.

Division No. 206.
AYES.
[11.40 p. m


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Astor, Viscountess
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bennett, A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balniel, Lord
Sothell, A.


Applin, Col. R. V. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Blundell, F. N.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gretton, Colonel John
Philipson, Mabel


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pleiou, D. P.


Brass, Captain W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristrol, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Preston, William


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad.)
Radford, E. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hanbury, C.
Raine, W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harland, A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bullock, Captain M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Burman, J. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Renter, J. R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hawke, John Anthony
Rentoul, G. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cassels, J. D.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R-, Scar. & Wh'by)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Savery, S. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, Copt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Lt.-Col. Sir G. L.
Jacob, A. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Storry Deans, R.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Lister, Cunliffe- Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lougher, L.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Dixon, Captain Rt Hon. Herbert
MacMillan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Doyle Sir N. Grattan
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson Major A. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Merriman, F. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Elveden, Viscount
Meyer, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moles, Thomas
Wells, S. R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fermoy, Lord
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielden, E. B.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fleming, D. P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murchison, C. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Joseph
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gates, Percy
Nuttall, Ellis
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh



Goff, Sir Park
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grant, J. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sir Harry Barnston and Major


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John
Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barnes, A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Ammon, Charles George
Barr, J.
Broad, F. A.




Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clowes, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Connolly, M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Dunnico, H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


England, Colonel A.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Viant, S P.


Forrest, W.
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Warne, G. H.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayes, John Henry
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Sir Robert Hutchison and Captain


Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Garro-Jones.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 21, line 27, to leave out "6s. 8d."
The next three series of Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with rates for noil yarn and tissue. The House will remember the discussion on noil yarns last week, when the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) brought forward the case of noil tissues. We were then receiving representations, contrary to our original information, that noil tissue and noil yarn were imported in considerable quantities. When the Bill was originally framed, we understood that most of this yarn and tissue were manufactured from waste in this country, and we have, therefore, in this series of Amendments, substituted a rate on noil yarn of 1s. 5d. the 1b. for the original rate, where it was not specially treated, and on noil tissue a special rate of 1s. 7d. the lb. The reason for this is evident when the House realises that imported noils are only charged duty of a 1s. a pound; therefore, as the waste is only 20 per cent., clearly that fact makes a lower rate of duty absolutely necessary. The other tissue covered by this series of Amendments is that class of silk which
is produced in the East. It is unloaded by immersion in rice. The rice removes the gum from the silk but some of the rice remains in the tissue, and, therefore, if habutai is charged at the same rate as discharged tissue, it means that the importer is paying for rice in addition to silk. This would be obviously unfair in the industry, and it is important to our British trade because there is a considerable industry in dyeing and treating this habutai in this country. You cannot dye it until you have washed out the rice content, and the British dyer would be seriously handicapped if he had to pay, not only for silk, but also for rice which would be of no value. He would be in a very unfair position as compared with the foreign dyer, who would then be able to send it into this country with the rice washed out. For these reasons, and because these duties are concessions to opinions which have been pressed in the House, I hope, without further debate, we may be allowed get these Amendments.

Miss WILKINSON: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone so far to meet the point I raised as to reduce these duties from 7s. 9d. to 1s. 7d., I feel
the only gracious thing to do is to say, "Thank you very much" and leave it at that. Yet—I want to bring in a "but"— though I appreciate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, I desire to say that he is placing a burden on a perfectly innocent trade. Even the tax as at present suggested, the 1s. 7d. a, pound, will mean an increase in price. That is to say, if it amounts to 4d. per yard bearing tax and when profits are made on the money that is necessarily held up, it means, roughly, 110 to 120 per cent. on the retail price, which will bring this material that is being sold by firms like Selfridges and Pontings at 9¾d.—it will, even with the reduction, bring it to Is. 8½d I will not weary the House or the Chancellor of the Exchequer by again going over the details I gave on a former occasion, but I just want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of this: that the higher rate of tax on any other material containing silk works out at an average of 24 per cent. on the selling price. If we have a 24 per cent. tax on these noil tissues it means that a firm like Pontings or Selfridges sell this tissue at 1s. 1d. per yard. If the duty is raised, then the price works out at 1s. 8½d., and it means that these tissues will simply not be sold, the reason being that they will then be brought to a price higher than that at which much better material is now selling —and they are not taxed. The very cheap and more inferior article will be raised to such a price that people will not buy it, because they can get better quality at the price.
I should like to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that what he is doing is really reducing the source of revenue that he means to get. If he charges even this 1s. 7d. per lb. he will not get the amount of revenue that he would get if he brought his tax down to the rate of crepe de Chine. Further information has come to me since I last spoke, and I find I understated the amount when I said it would be £10,000,000 Actually it is more like £15,000,000 Taking that figure, and making the duty 7½d. per lb., that, roughly, gives a revenue to the Chancellor of £104,000 a year. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman takes the lower figure, it will mean, at least, that this material can be sold, and it will be very much better, even from the revenue point of view, than if he puts on
this tax of 1s. 7d. I do not want to seem ungracious, but as the right hon. Gentleman has made this alteration, I wonder if he could possibly take what I have said into consideration?

Mr. GUINNESS: I can only speak again with the permission of the House, but I should like the hon. Member to know the reason for what we have done. She said that the cost of these noil tissues is 10d. per lb. There is a great deal of discrepancy about the figures. The hon. Member gives a figure of 2s. per lb.

Miss WILKINSON: Are we talking about the same thing?

12 M.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think so. No doubt the duty will not work out at an ad valorem rate, and the explanation is that our prices show the actual wholesale rate in the country. We are informed that instead of being 10d. per lb., it varies from 2s. 8d. to 4s. per. lb. wholesale; and for these reasons we consider that the rates which we now propose to apply to this are reasonable rates.

Captain BENN: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken even on the figures that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) gave. I would like to draw the attention of the House to this sloppy document, full of mistakes and full of Amendments. Let me take as an illustration this noile. Would the House believe that in the document as drafted now there is a Customs duty of 7s. 9d. on this material and a drawback of 1s. 7d. The Chancellor has probably never noticed it. I was certainly surprised when I found it out. I looked to see if he had altered the drawback, and I found he had not. The proposal as brought forward and before it was altered at the instance of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough actually charged a Customs duty of 7s. 9d. and only gave 1s. 7d. drawback. So much for the interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the export trade! Now he has reduced the Customs duty from 7s. 9d. to the present figure of 1s. 7d. and has left the drawback where it was. But these are details. We are merely taxing the people! It is true we are doing it at midnight, and that it really does not matter, since it forms a convenient plat-
form for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his displays.
I have only got the figures supplied to me by the trade, and I am basing myself on those, but I have taken the greatest pains to see that the sources of my information are authoritative and well-informed. What is the real charge against this sort of tax? It is that it is a tax which is graded in inverse ratio to the capacity to pay. It does not charge the dear stuff more and the cheap stuff less, but it charges the cheap stuff more and the dear stuff less. There is ninon at 4 per cent., Japanese silk at 20 per cent., and other grades up to 26 per cent. You cannot get out of that so long as you tax material by weight instead of by value. That is what we have repeatedly pointed out. I have an easy way of escape from the tax. Throw the whole lot overboard and save the money on warships. [Interruption.] Yes, we had Free Trade then, and if the Liberal Government had not found the money I do not know what might have happened when the clash with the Germans came. I have only one further point, and that is as to the right hon. Gentleman's controversy about the rate of percentage of this tax. With a cost per 1b. of 2s. 5d. and a tax of 1s 7d., the rate of tax is 65 per cent. It is perfectly true that the Chancellor was proposing a tax of 317 per cent., and he has reduced it to 65 per cent. I do not think that deals with the difficulty, but inasmuch as it is an improvement I presume no one will divide against the Amendment. Still, it is necessary to point out, whatever the hour and whatever the impatience of hon. Members may be, that this system, even if it works, will impose great hardship, and it is doubtful whether it can work at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 21, line 27, at the end, insert the words.

Not being noil yarn
the lb.
6s.
8d.


Noil yarn
the lb.
1s.
5d.

In page 21, line 30, leave out "7s. 9d."

In page 21, line 31, at the end, insert the words


Noil tissue
the lb.
1s.
7d.


Tissue known as habutai not dyed or printed
the lb.
6s.
6d.


Other tissues
the lb.
7s.
9d.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 22, line 8, column 2, to leave out the word "value," and to insert instead thereof the words "aggregate of the values of all the components."
This proposal arises out of the Amendment which was carried during the Committee stage and was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is my first and probably my only attempt to endeavour to obtain a scientific tariff. The position is that the proposal as originally proposed in the Budget contained two columns. The first gave the percentage of silk in the value of the article, while the second gave the percentage of duty on the value of the article, and the word value was used in the same way in the two columns. The tax was not of a scientific kind because it varied between considerable limits. In the case of an article wholly of silk the percentage was 33⅓ while with an article in which the percentage of silk was 20 per cent., the tax was 166⅔ on the value of the silk in the article. In the second paragraph this varied from 50 to 200 per cent., and below 5 per cent. it was still more varied. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved his Amendment to alter the meaning of the word "value" in the first column he made this discrepancy very much greater than it had been before. He explained that it was possible to have an article in which the value might well be ten times the value of all its component parts. That is rather a large variation, but if that is so it is possible for the tax on a piece of silk in an article of 20 per cent. of the aggregate value of the component parts to be 1,600 per cent. of the silk which is being imported. That is a very strange result arising out of these tariff proposals. In the case of articles under the second paragraph it is possible for the tax to be 2,000 per cent. of the value of silk in the article imported, on the assumption that the value as a whole can be 10 times the aggregate of the component parts. Personally, I think his own assumption is rather an exaggerated one, and it is only an extreme case, but it must be perfectly clear that under these proposals, if you are going to take a different definition of value in column 1 of the Schedule from what you take in column 2, it is perfectly possible to get a tax on imports which amounts
to several hundred per cent. of the value of the silk imported. I do think that that goes a very long way from the scientific tariff which the Chancellor professes to attain. I can understand a tariff which tries to exclude all foreign articles; I can understand a scientific tariff; but I cannot understand a tariff which imposes arbitrarily, according to the amount of silk in an article, a tariff that may be 33⅓ per cent., and may run up to several hundred per cent. I believe that if you are going to have an arbitrary tariff of that kind, you will increase the incentive to smuggling, you will not get your revenue, and you will create a position which the traders and the people of this country will very much resent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With great labour over long weeks, with the advice of the officials of the Customs and Excise Department, in constant consultation with representatives of many branches of the trades affected, and under the continuous pressure and guidance of debate in the House of Commons, we have arrived at a certain Schedule of Duties. We have been reproached even with the degree to which we have been led to vary and modify our proposals to meet the suggestions from various quarters of the House and different branches of the trade; but in the result we have reached a conclusion, and that conclusion is embodied in the Schedules which are now before the House. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), applying the keen energy of his mathematical mind to these problems without being troubled by any of these consultations with the interests concerned, has evolved an alternative plan, and has presented to the House as his contribution the scientific tariff which has figured so much in the legislation of other countries and which he apprehends may some day he introduced into our own. I accept with every acknowledgment his labours, and I speak of them with respect and recognise them with gratitude, but I am sure his own sterling good sense would make him realise that it would be quite impossible at this stage of the Finance Bill to scrap the whole process and sacrifice the whole results of the process by which we have arrived at the present Schedules, and substitute the Schedule which He suggests. For good or ill, the
Silk Tax must go forth on its career, on the responsibility of His Majesty's Government, and I really think that, on the whole, the hon. Gentleman, having regard to the views expressed by his party and the views he has expressed on the general structure of the duties, will be well-advised not to claim with undue insistence a position of direct responsibility in regard to these duties.

Captain BENN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not said a word about the Amendment. The Amendment was not offered in a jocular way. It is put forward on behalf of people who are trying to carry on their trade and whose business is being hampered by the right hon. Gentleman and on behalf of the consumers. He has not met a case of that kind by a few jocose remarks. He has to address himself to the Amendment and, if he can, he has to produce arguments to rebut the arguments of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), one of the Members of this House who was responsible for postponing his return to this House. He must not allow memories of old bitterness to prejudice him against this proposal. He must examine the proposal on its merits. May I explain some of them? Made-up articles are subject to tariff. It is not simply a tax on silk, but a tax on, it may be, gloves, coats, boots, umbrellas or hats. It is a general tax that we are imposing. The question is, what rate of duty are you going to impose in your general tariff? By this change the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing 30 per cent. and so forth. He is pushing a whole lot of articles into the higher rate of duty. Then he gets up here and says that this Schedule is the result of long deliberation, consultation with all the interests concerned, and guided by the debates in the House. That is nonsense. It is a thing that was produced here by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself a few days ago, in the middle of the Committee stage. It was not in the original Bill. There was nothing about the aggregate value of the components in the original Bill. In order to press all these things into the higher rate of tariff, in order to satisfy the Protectionist hunger of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir Henry Page Croft) and others, he has done this by Amendment. It was not in the original
balance of the scheme. He has not given any justification for such taxation. It is simply part of a general protective scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well where he stands and how long he can stand there, and on what conditions. He knows that he has to make his peace with the Protectionist Members of the party opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] It is not my fault that this comes on at this time of night,

and I intend, and we intend, to exercise the right of criticism. There has been no justification for this change. It was introduced spontaneously by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it will have the effect of largely increasing the Protective character of the tariff.

Question put, "That the word "value" stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 88.

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[12.20 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Murchison, C. K.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Neville, R. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Atholl, Duchess of
Grant, J. A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Balniel, Lord
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Oakley, T.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel John
Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Pielou, D. P.


Bennett, A. J.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bethell, A.
Hanbury, C.
Preston, William


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Raine, W.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hawke, John Anthony
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Remer, J. R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Burman, J. B.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chapman, Sir S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Savery, S. S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Christie, J. A.
Jacob, A. E.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Lane-Fox, Lieut. Col. George R.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lougher, L.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dawson, Sir Philis
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Drewe, C.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tinne, J. A.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elveden, Viscount
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


England, Colonel Abraham
Merriman, F. B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moles, Thomas
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Fleming, D. P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
white, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Forestler-Walker, L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Captain Hacking and Major Cope.


Wise, Sir Fredric




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich).


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles, H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Edwards.


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 22, line 42, at the end, to insert the words


"Tissue known as habutai if dyed or printed in Great Britain or Northern Ireland
the lb.
7s.
9d."


This Amendment is designed to adjust the drawback rate on habutai in view of the lower import duty to which the House has just assented, and to allow habutai the same rate considered as a discharged material. The reason for this is that it is only fair that in the rebate we should allow for the loss of material represented by the washing out of the rice.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 10, at the end, to insert:
6. Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that any yarn or tissue of silk or artificial silk is being imported solely for the purpose of undergoing a process in Great Britain or Northern Ireland the Commissioners may, subject to such conditions as they think fit to impose for securing the re-exportation of the goods, allow the goods to be imported free of duty.
7. If, on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of any article wholly or in part of silk or artificial silk, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners—

(a) that the article was produced abroad by means of some process from an article exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland, and that con-
1480
sequently the case does not fall within the provisions of Section eleven of this Act; and
(b) that the article is liable to duty at the same rate as the duty payable on the exported article from which it was produced; and
(c) that any drawback paid on the exportation of the said article has been repaid;
the duty charged on the re-importation of the article shall, if chargeable by reference to the weight thereof, be charged only upon the amount by which the weight of the article on re-importation exceeds the weight at exportation and, if chargeable by reference to value, shall be charged only on the amount by which the value of the article at re-importation exceeds the value at exportation.
8. The Commissioners may make regulations for relieving from any duty of customs or excise chargeable in respect of artificial silk, any artificial silk which is to be used in the manufacture of tissues in part of artificial silk and in part of other fibre, if those tissues are intended for exportation.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The next Amendment is put as one under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's name. It is, in fact, an Amendment which covers three separate paragraphs—Nos. 6, 7 and 8— dealing with totally different matters. I do not know whether you leave it open to the House to consider each of these matters separately, if necessary, as they are quite separate issues.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): It is open to the hon. Member to move to leave out any part.

Mr. GUINNESS: I will say a word or two on each of the paragraphs, namely, 6, 7, and 8. Paragraph 6 is to deal with the drawbacks in relation to bringing silk into this country for dyeing and processes. Where it is going to be re-exported the Customs will allow its temporary admission without payment of duty. Paragraph 7 is a temporary arrangement which will only take effect during the first few months where a converse process has taken place and where duty has already been paid on goods which are re-imported. They will not be subject to a second charge for duty. Paragraph 8 is a provision which the House has discussed on former occasions for the through ticket.

Captain BENN: I may more conveniently raise some questions on the three together. I have got yesterday's Order Paper and I notice that paragraph 7, which is a temporary Measure for the re-import of things sent abroad, was covered by a provision of Clause 10 of this Bill. I find the Clause has nothing to do with the subject. I was somewhat perplexed to find on the Paper to-day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has amended his own Amendment, and that it now turns out to be Clause 11.It is a small matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is a small matter, but it had to be taken in connection with this Amendment. You have reprinted editions when everybody is understood to be suited. When you find that in a solemn matter like finance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to go through his own Amendments and alter them, I think it would have been better to take a little more time to consider the whole question. That may be only a matter of sloppiness and does not really affect the Amendment and the tax one way or the other. I want to ask about the rebate repayable under paragraph 7. Does it mean that if silk went abroad for process and came in as part of a made-up article and duty was charged on the value of the made-up article would it, if re-exported with some added ornament, have the tax re-imposed ad valorem, on the price of the whole article? Would paragraph 8 apply if artificial silk was used in made-up articles intended for exportation? There is no
reason why you should treat tissues more favourably than made-up articles. I would like to know whether the Chancellor has considered this point and whether it is logical.

Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as No. 8 is concerned, it was not intended that the through ticket should apply to anything but tissues. It is not contemplated that the through ticket will be applied to the made-up articles. They would be covered by provisions dealing with the entrepôt trade. So far as No. 7 is concerned, that, I think, speaks for itself. If an article is re-imported into this country after going through a process, either in weight or in value, then allowance is made and the charge is made on the difference.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 15, at the end, to insert:
10. Subject to such conditions for safeguarding the Revenue as the Commissioners may impose, the rates of drawback specified in Part IV of this Schedule shall, in respect of yarn and tissues of artificial silk exported by any person who makes an application in that behalf to the Commissioners, have effect during such period, not being less than twelve months, as may be specified in the application in substitution for the rates of drawback set out in Part II of this Schedule.
11. In calculating the amount of the drawback payable in respect of any tissue wholly or in part of silk or artificial silk, being tissue from which a portion of the surface has been burnt or cut away in the process of manufacture, the Commissioners shall make such allowance as seems to them proper in respect of any loss of weight due to the burning or cutting.
The first of these paragraphs provides for the case where a trader chooses to be dealt with under the individual rates instead of the average rates. He has to make his choice for a period of not le3S than 12 months and he will not, of course, be able to choose whatever rate appears to him the best for a particular transaction. Paragraph 11 allows the Commissioners to make reasonable allowance for the loss of material in certain fabrics like carpets, or for pile fabrics, where the pattern is burned in, to allow for the quite exceptional loss of material which is burned.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the Financial Secretary if he has considered the number of staff necessary to carry out all these allowances, drawbacks, arrangements and various through tickets?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would not like to say that no additional human being would be employed, but I am bound to say that, from the beginning right up to the last moment, the Customs assure me that they do not contemplate any appreciable addition.

Miss WILKINSON: They must be having a very slack time.

Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask for a little more explanation of the loss of material by patterns being burned in?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would have thought the description was clear. I believe there are certain tissues which are partly of silk and partly velvet. In a certain number of these cases the altered surface is brought about by a species of chemical burning which involves considerable loss of tissue. It is not fair that the manufacturers should have to pay on this material which has been lost.

Mr. SHAW: May I repeat my question in a different form? A rebate is to be made for material that is lost owing to a process of burning-in. I know something about patterns; I have had something to do with them; but never have I known patterns burnt in, and I am really anxious to know what new developments are taking place, because if we get these new developments we might increase our trade.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a perfectly definite case of these silk fabrics which are treated by a process of partial burning, and a momentary impression is given at a certain period of the combustion. That impression exercises its peculiar charm on a certain section of the feminine population. It is very wasteful in material, and the weight of the product is greatly reduced by the process, and it would be manifestly unfair if we made no allowance for essential and necessary waste which occurs during the carrying out of what is, after all, a very remarkable chemical development.

Mr. SHAW: Am I to assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer really means, not a pattern burnt in, but floating threads burnt off?

Mr. CHURCHILL: You must not get into metaphysics.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the Chancellor why he says it is unfair to the
manufacturer to make him pay on material that is burnt out, and yet he considers it fair to make the housewife pay on tin that is washed out?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be trespassing on the indulgence of the House if I made too many speeches on the Report stage.

Mr. HARRIS: When the Chancellor comes down at the last moment and moves Amendments proposing something that even he himself does not understand, I think for the protection of the traders concerned we want to be quite clear what he intends to do and how he intends to do it. The House might study the wording of this Amendment. It proposes that the Commissioners shall make such allowance as seems to them proper in respect of any loss or waste due to burning or cutting. Are they to do that in every individual article? Are the Commissioners solemnly to sit and consider the great variety of tissues and silk that go through these various processes, and consider what allowance is to be made in each individual case? If not, what are the regulations going to be? If they are to be in the form of regulations, the House has a right to see those regulations and approve them. It is almost unprecedented for the Commissioners to have a free hand to make regulations as they think fit, without these regulations being placed on the Table of the House. In the present form, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever he may say, will find he is landed with a great horde of officials to carry out these very wide powers the Commissioners are asked to exercise.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 26, at the end, to insert:
14. Section one hundred and six of The Customs (Consolidation) Act, 1876, so far as it relates to the case where goods are found to be of less value for home use than the amount of the drawback claimed, shall not apply to articles of clothing used only as models for trade exhibition.

Captain BENN: I cannot pretend to admire very much the explanations that we have had, but it seems a pity to forego the entertaining formality of hearing what the Front Bench has to say.

Mr. GUINNESS: The meaning of paragraph 14 is to secure that drawback
can be claimed on models of clothing which are re-exported, after being considerably deteriorated by wear and use in this country. The reason that this is necessary is that Section 106 of the Customs (Consolidation) Act, 1876, provides that drawback cannot be obtained on articles which are of less value for home use than the amount of the draw-

PART IV.


Alternative Scale of Drawbacks in respect of Artificial Silk.


Article.
Rates of drawback.



In respect of material contained in the goods being material on which a Customs duty was paid.
In respect of material contained in the goods being material on which an Excise duty was paid.



s.
d.
s.
d.


Singles yarn made from staple fibre or other waste, Double or twisted thread advanced beyond the stage of singles yarn—
the lb.
1
2
0
7


Made from staple fibre or other waste
the lb.
1
3
0
8


Made from singles yarn
the lb.
2
3
1
2


Tissues—


Made from staple fibre or other waste
the lb.
1
4
0
9


Made from singles yarn
the lb.
2
4
1
3

This new Schedule is to allow the trader the choice between taking the average rates of the drawback or taking his drawback on the individual rates which he has paid for the articles which are used as ingredients in what he is exporting. The matter has been discussed on former occasions; it was dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Committee stage; and I have already explained to-night that it has got to be settled by a trader for not less than a year, and he cannot take this individual rate on one transaction and the average rate on another.

Captain BENN: This is probably the last opportunity, until this Bill is repealed, of discussing these drawbacks, and I want to offer a few valedictory words. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, first of all, told us that this is drawbacks we are dealing with, and that he will not require more officials. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) made the apt comment that they cannot have very much to do now. It does not require any additional staff or any additional buildings. Yet we hear—not from the Chancellor but from the newspapers—that additional premises are being taken for this purpose; and the Chancellor, in an unrestrained outburst of rhetoric, said all this great work and all this great

back claimed. If we did not suspend the operation of that Clause it would mean that the concession which we consider right and reasonable for these trade models would be of no effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 26, line 6, at the end, to insert:

machinery must be put to some use in extracting money from the taxpayer. This is an alternative scale of drawbacks, and I should explain in a word, as far as I can understand it, how the drawback system works, because it is obvious that, if there is not a satisfactory drawback system, then all this taxation of the Chancellor will operate greatly to the detriment of a large and an important export trade. I understand that under Part II, if the article is exported in the form in which it was imported it simply gets the same that it paid when it goes out. That is to protect the entrepôt trade. That is comparatively simple. If, on the other hand, it was made here from dutiable articles—silk, artificial silk and so on—the same drawback is given equal to the duty paid upon the silk content. So that for this purpose, as we pointed out earlier in the Debate, the Customs will know the silk content, though they allege that for import purposes it is impossible to know the silk content.

I will come to the new alternative Schedule. It must be understood that people who calculate their claims for drawbacks may have a great number of printed materials paying different rates. They may have imported it from the Dominions or abroad. If from the Dominions, it will be five-sixths of the
duty, and if from France, Switzerland or elsewhere, it will be in a different category. The exporter, having made all these calculations, makes an application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the money, but he cannot quote a market-price if he cannot calculate on getting the drawback. The man who is thus perplexed will refuse to waste time trying to make the calculation in order to appeal to the Customs to get the drawback, and will give it up as hopeless. That is what happened with a great many of the McKenna drawbacks. I am told it is waste of time to ask for the drawback. There is one further point, and it is this. All these calculations are based upon the silk content, but there is no provision made for duty which has paid ad valorem. Suppose, for example, a man imports electrical machinery. There is a considerable trade done in this in this country. Supposing he does as many do, he buys his wire from abroad—a silk-covered insulated wire —he will pay on that wire not merely a tax on the silk which insulates the wire, but he will pay a tax upon the whole value of the copper and the silk. I have given the Chancellor of the Exchequer some examples given to me by an importing firm. In this case the man can only get back what is to be the estimated Customs Duty on the silk wire. That is not fair. Take a man in the millinery trade who imports a portion of a frock—a made up article on which he pays 33⅓ per cent. and then re-exports it. He does not get back the duty value on the article. All he gets is the silk content that is in the article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an optimist; the Financial Secretary is an optimist; all the officials of the Customs are optimists. The only pessimists are the people in the trade. I do say that where the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech, "I am convinced that it will work smoothly and promptly," I challenge him to repeat that assertion to-day. They all think that it will hamper trade and that it will mean losses, great and small, inflicted on their trade by this unnecessary tax. These are some criticisms of the working of the drawback system, especially in regard to the made-up articles. I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to ignore this as a piece of destructive criticism.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The actual Amendment that has been moved deals with the question of the drawbacks which should be given to manufactures into which yarn or tissue enters which is imported from abroad or manufactured in this country, paying either Customs or Excise. The hon. and gallant Member seems to me that he gave very good reasons to the House why we should adopt at. If you take the case of the average ordinary merchant or manufacturer exporter, you will find that a broad average can be struck. We have struck a balance in this respect, and arrived at a figure which we know will be the normal rate of drawbacks irrespective of whether the silk content is derived from home manufacture or foreign importation. Such a man using only imported material would lose if he adopted the average rate, therefore, we have provided an alternative rate of drawbacks. That is the choice. It may involve a little more trouble and consideration, but that is the sole object of the Amendment. I am quite sure it will work with extraordinary ease. I defy the hon. Gentleman, with all his ingenuity, to find a more simple remedy.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: I merely rise to ask the Chancellor to make a statement. I think there are certain anomalies in this and the other Schedule which is the alternative. The ease with which these drawbacks may be worked largely depends upon the trades concerned and the Customs officials. With regard to the setting up of an advisory committee, on which manufacturers and possibly other interests will be represented with the Customs officials, so that many questions which may arise as matters of routine may be settled without reference to headquarters, I want to ask the Chancellor if it is his intention to institute such a committee?

Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask, before the right hon. Gentleman replies, whether it is the intention that the Customs officials should check the statements of the merchants? I am not asking in any quibbling spirit, but I know some of the technicalities. If it is the case that the Customs have to check the merchants, I am sure the Chancellor will find he will have to have a very large staff indeed. It is one of the most difficult things imaginable to
find out an article which is composed of four or five materials.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman. The earlier discussion on this question opened up a very searching problem. The combination of merchants and Customs officials enables us to carry on our very large Customs import work by a Customs staff which does not exceed 1,000 people. It is certainly a proposition to which I will give most earnest and sympathetic attention. We have no other wish than to co-operate in the most convenient manner, and it is in the interest of the Government to bring these duties into operation with the minimum of friction and with the greatest advantage to all those concerned.

Mr. HARRIS: I think it is a most valuable suggestion that there should be a committee in Manchester, but there should also be a committee set up to deal with the much more complex question in London. The textile trade in London is very complicated, especially the made-up trade and the millinery trade. If there is to be no difficulty and friction, there should be an advisory committee in London which would be very valuable. With reference to one point about the particulars already furnished to the Customs, in the past it has been merely for information purposes. It has been a rough and ready classification. When it is for tax purposes the classification will have to be much more accurate and will involve much more work for export and Customs.

Amendment agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 28, line 9, at the end, to insert the words
Lace and embroidery…Two-thirds of the full rate.
This is to provide an Imperial Preference rate for the new duty.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are we to have no other explanation of what lace is coming in from the Dominions. We have had a most inadequate defence of the other Clause dealing with the Lace Duty. The Financial Secretary has not told us where the lace is coming from; whether it is coming from the Dominions where labour conditions are fair.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be quite impossible for us in giving preference to the Dominions and Colonies to sit in judgment on the varying labour conditions in any one part of these Dominions, many of which exercise self-governing functions, and are in some cases under the guidance of Governments who accept the labels of the party opposite. I think we must deal on broad lines with the great Dominions who are in the fullest enjoyment of self-governing rights and authority. I hope the hon. Member is not going to get indignant. This is a purely routine proposal. The House has accepted the principle that Preference should be given on existing duties. We are giving the usual Preference, in the usual way, on a duty to be enforced in the future. The rebate will be granted, in the recognised percentage to the Dominions and Colonies, and to make that grant an excuse for calling their internal affairs into review would be most unsuitable. It would be better to have no Preference at all. It is purely a matter of routine. There is nothing that departs in any way from the well-known principles which have operated for many years past. They have been consistently adhered to.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the reply is a justification for raising this point. With regard to lace produced within the Empire, the specific question I asked was, "What part of the Empire is lace coming from?" We have had no reply to that. I speak with no great knowledge of the sources of the supply of lace from the Dominions. I would say that possibly we do not get lace to any great extent except from Malta. Here we have a future disqualification upon the lace industry in this country. We are to have Protection to provide more employment and raise the standard of life. The President of the Board of Trade said he was not concerned with other workers in other parts of the world; he was only concerned about conditions here. Now we are asked to pass this preference without any reference to the conditions of the workers in Malta. We are asked to give a special right of competition to an industry below the British standard.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the duty was not imposed, the competition would be much morel severe. It will now have
two-thirds of the duty operative against it. If we had had no lace duty, the competition of this industry, carried on under whatever conditions it may be, would have continued unrestrained. What we have done should be judged as a whole. We have given one-third rebate to the Colonies in question. So far as the workers in Nottingham are concerned, they are certainly receiving a measure of protection against this competition to which the hon. Gentleman refers. On the other hand, the Colonies in question, by getting Preference, may be able to gain a larger share of trade and a revenue sufficient to improve the conditions under which the lace is made.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards this as a purely routine Measure. He should not look at it as something which has happened in previous Preferences, but as embodying a new principle which may make his ideas on Preference much more attractive in other circles in this country. I am sure that would be doing something which would tend to make these Debates run less on party lines. He is not concerned in the Budget, he says, with the labour conditions under which these things are produced. What then becomes of all this talk about safeguarding the conditions, wages, and rights of the workers in Nottingham? I understood that the whole object of proposing this tax was to safeguard these. Now we have it frankly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not care a rush what are the conditions of labour under which—

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sorry if I misrepresent him, but I understood him to say that a moment ago.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I say it is not my affair to intrude in the affairs of the self-governing Dominions.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is the same thing stated in another way. He is not

going to interfere in what he calls the affairs of the self-governing Dominions, but he must surely recognise that in this Measure we are not dealing with the self-governing Dominions but with the financial affairs of the people of this country. We are dealing with the conditions of labour of the people of this country. He proposes to put a tax on the import of lace, and when we ask him to ensure that this lace to which he is going to give a preference shall be produced under fair labour conditions he says it is no business of his and he will do nothing. I can assure him that many of us who would regard a discrimination in favour of decent labour conditions with considerable satisfaction are certainly not going to have anything of this kind, and we will all go unitedly into the Lobby against a preference tariff which is not giving a preference on labour conditions, which makes no attempt to raise the standard of labour of the producer, which does nothing whatever but find extra profits for a few exploiters who may not be nationals at all, who need not be British subjects, who may come from anywhere and dump down a factory in Malta or any British Dominion, pay whatever wages they like, observe no trade union conditions, work their poor workers all the hours that God sends and a few more, and import the stuff into this country and smash the labour conditions of the people here. The idea that the primary purpose of the Budget was to raise the conditions of labour of the people of this country is now seen to be wholly a miserable pretence. I trust that Members of this House who have been previously taken in by the story that this Lace Tax was intended to benefit the people of Nottingham will now see that it is not intended to benefit the people of Nottingham at all if the product of sweated labour is to be welcomed so long as that sweated labour comes from the British Dominions.

Question put: "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House Divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 49.

Division No. 208.]
AYES.
[1.25 a.m.


Acland-Troyte Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bennett, A. J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Brassey Sir Leonard


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Burman, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remer, J. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Savery, S. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cope, Major William
Jacob, A. E.
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jephcott. A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Col. C. de. W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Homel Hempst'd)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fleming, D. P.
Moles, Thomas
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)



Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Lord Stanley and Captain Mar-


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pielou, D. P.
gesson.


Hanbury, C.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Stephen, Campbell


Alexander, A.V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sutton, J. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thorne, W. (Wast Ham, Plaistow)


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Tinker, John Joseph


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Warne, G. H.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.



Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John
Edwards.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Bill to be read the Third time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday Evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before Two o'Clock a.m.